Preamble

The House met at a Quarter past Two o'Clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PRIVATE BILLS (STANDING ORDERS NOT PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED INTO NOT COMPLIED WITH)

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table,— Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the following Bill, referred on the Second Reading thereof, the Standing Orders not previously inquired into, which are applicable thereto, have not been complied with, namely:

Tees Conservancy.

Report referred to the Standing Orders Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH ARMY

Requisitioned Property

Lieutenant William Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War the number of dwelling-houses still requisitioned by his Department in Hale and Bowden.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. J. J. Lawson): One, Sir.

War Gratuities

Lieutenant W. Shepherd: asked the Secretary of State for War why the parents of men killed in action over 15 months ago have not yet received their gratuities; and what steps he is taking to improve this position.

Mr. Lawson: Since the issue of war gratuities in respect of deceased officers and other ranks commenced last Septem-

ber, good progress has been made with the task of dealing with the cases involved, numbering upwards of 160,000. The importance of completing these issues as early as possible is fully realised, and my Department has allocated to this work the maximum staff which can usefully be employed upon it, having regard to the other pressing tasks upon which the War Office is now engaged.

Lieutenant Shepherd: Is the Minister aware that parents of men killed in 1940 are now being paid, and can he do something to expedite the matter?

Mr. Lawson: We are doing what we can in the circumstances to speed up this matter.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: Could the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many cases his Department is dealing with per month?

Mr. Lawson: No, I could not.

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for War why the gratuity for service of men who enlisted for the duration of the emergency will only be paid to 15th August and not until the official date of the end of the emergency.

Mr. Lawson: The grant of a war gratuity is not related to the terms of a man's enlistment but to the war service which he has given. The end of the period which is to count as war service for this purpose has therefore been fixed in relation to VJ day, although it has been extended in spite of the cessation of hostilities until the anniversary of that day.

Personal Cases

Captain Charles Smith: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he has considered the case, submitted to him by the hon. and gallant Member for Colchester, of an N.C.O. who has been refused an O.C.T.U. course for the A.E.C., despite the recommendation of a War Office selection board; whether he will state the reason for the ban on this individual; and whether, in view of the shortage of officers of the A.E.C., he will reconsider the case.

Mr. Lawson: I have reconsidered this case, but I have nothing to add to the letter I sent my hon. and gallant Friend on 11th December, 1945.

Captain Smith: Does the Minister consider, having regard to the record and character of this man and his proven abilities, as shown in the documents I have sent, that adequate use is being made of his services at the present time?

Mr. Lawson: As I stated to my hon. and gallant Friend in the letter I wrote, the Army Council, or those they delegate to deal with these matters, cannot abrogate their responsibility in these matters and they are the final authority.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Could it be that the political opinions of this N.C.O. were found not to coincide with the Left Wing leanings of the great majority of members of the Army Educational Corps?

Mr. Lawson: This rule, as I have stated, applies to all, irrespective of opinion.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for War why 7384299 Corporal G. A. Harman, R.A.M.C, who enlisted in August, 1940, embarked for Middle East August, 1941, and returned to United Kingdom under Python on 21st September, 1945, was reposted for service out of the United Kingdom on 15th December, 1945; why this soldier received no embarkation leave; and if he will arrange for his immediate return to home posting.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. Bellenger): This non-commissioned officer is a qualified radiographer and was posted as such to a hospital ship in December, 1945. This ship is classed as a home based unit and returns to the United Kingdom at frequent intervals. Personnel joining such a ship are not entitled to embarkation leave, but opportunities for leave are always afforded when the ship returns to this country. When this ship arrives home in the very near future Corporal Harman will be transferred to a home posting.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of State for War why Soong Kwong, having on two previous occasions been acquitted by the assessors, was tried on 3rd January for the third time for the same offence by a military court at Kuala Lumpur; if he is aware of the protests made against his sentence by the Central Committee of M.P A.J.A. to Lord Louis Mountbatten;

and if he will take steps to secure the immediate release of Soong Kwong.

Mr. Bellenger: I have called for a report on this case, and as soon as it is received I write to the hon. Member.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt: On a point of order. Can we have a translation of M.P.A.J.A.?

Mr. Piratin: M.P.A.J.A. means the Malay People's Anti-Japanese Association.

Mr. Piratin: asked the Secretary of state for War whether, in the case of 2371253, Lance-Corporal G. Rabin, particulars of which have been supplied, who was recalled to his unit contrary to the terms of a letter to the hon. Member for Mile End from the Financial Secretary 0 the War Office, dated 27th September, 1945, the immediate return of this soldier to the United Kingdom will be authorised and appropriate action taken to see that lower units do not override an authority from his Department granting compassionate release to a soldier.

Mr. Bellenger: There was no question of a lower unit overriding the authority of the War Office in this case. Before the release authority had reached the unit the soldier had returned overseas. If it had been realised that the soldier was simply on leave in this country and not on the Home Establishment, steps would have been taken to retain him while the case was being considered. I do not consider that the circumstances of this case are sufficiently serious to warrant any recommendation for repatriation on compassionate grounds being sent to the overseas Command.

Mr. Piratin: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the information he has just provided to us does not tally with the information provided to me in the course of the correspondence with his Department, and that at one time, in September, this leave was granted, and that subsequently the man was found to have returned to the unit from which he had come to this country? How does he explain that a decision of the War Office on the one hand, as indicated in that letter, is overridden by the unit Commander on the other?

Mr. Bellenger: In these cases, where a man has come home from overseas and a


case is put up for the compassionate release of that man, we endeavour, at the War Office, to hold him here while the case is being considered. In this case the man, unfortunately, left this country and went back to his unit before we could come to a decision.

Demobilisation

Major Digby: asked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the R.A.S.C. in the Middle East have been deferred a second time; and how many groups of these officers would have qualified for home leave, under the L.I.A.P. scheme, if these deferments had been duly foreseen in September, 1945.

Mr. Lawson: I am making inquiries and as soon as they are completed I will write to my hon. Friend.

Major Digby: Is it not a fact that R.A.S.C. officers of Group 23 were refused leave five months ago on the ground that they were to be released soon and that since then that release has twice been postponed?

Mr. Lawson: I am making inquiries upon this matter, but they are in no different position from that of other ranks on this matter.

Captain Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that officers in C.M.F. have been informed that for the purposes of L.I.A.P. all officers in age and service Groups 24-29 would be considered as deferred; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Lawson: There is no question of any general deferment of the release of all officers in Groups 24 to 29 serving with C.M.F. It is, however, possible and reasonable that officers in these Groups should be debarred from L.I.A.P. on the grounds that they would be unlikely to be able to give a useful period of service after their return from leave before they become due to go home for release. This would be within the discretion of the Commander-in-Chief, who must make an estimate of the probable dates of release of various Groups in order to interpret the L.I.A.P. scheme reasonably.

Captain Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War the dates for release, in the United Kingdom, of officers and other ranks in C.M.F. in age and service Groups 25 and 26.

Mr. Lawson: The programme for release in the United Kingdom of officers and other ranks serving in C.M.F. is the same as for other stations at home and overseas.

Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that time-expired men who are released in Class B lose the 28 days' S.E.W.L.R.O.M. leave to which they are normally entitled; and whether, in order to encourage all men to accept Class B release when it is offered, he will remove this disability.

Captain Crowder: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask if you could discourage Members from using so many initials in their Questions? I am sure many Members do not know what S.E.W.L.R.O.M. means.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it would make the Question too long if all these words were inserted.

Captain Crowder: It does not make sense.

Mr. Lawson: I must say I had to inquire about this matter myself, and 1 think anyone else in my position would have had to do so also. S.E.W.L.R.O.M. means Special End of War Leave for Regular Officers and Men. Twenty-eight days' special end of the war leave is only given to Regular soldiers who have at least a further 12 months to serve. Time-expired men who have not re-engaged or deferred their release are not eligible for this leave, and the point raised in my hon. Friend's Question does not therefore arise.

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the current or the proposed deferment of release of R.A.S.C. officers.

Major Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War what extra period of deferment is being applied to the release of R.A.S.C. officers in the Middle East, over and above the deferment already announced for offices of other arms.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that Captain G. Barnett, R.A.S.C., 3 Field Ambulance, M.E.F., who is in release Group 25 has been informed that he is to be deferred for three months;


whether he will state the number of officers in release Group 25 who are being similarly deferred; and whether he will reconsider such deferments.

Colonel Stoddart-Scott: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that R.A.S.C. officers in age and service Group 23 in the M.E.F have had their demobilisation deferred en bloc; what other groups have been deferred and for how long; is it confined to M.E.F.; and when will the release of R.A.S.C officers catch up with the general release plan.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Moseley (Sir P. Hannon) on 5th February.

Mr. Driberg: Could my right hon. Friend say, approximately, how long it takes to train an R.A.S.C. officer? Is it not a comparatively short time, and does that not have some bearing on this deferment?

Mr. Lawson: I cannot answer that now, but if the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question, I will do so.

Mr. Norman Bower: asked the Secretary of State for War why release Group 27 has been deferred; and how long he anticipates the deferment will continue.

Mr. Lawson: Group 27 has never been deferred. The release of other ranks in this Group is due to begin on 7th March and to be completed by 20th April. The release of officers is due to take place between 6th and 22nd May.

Mr. Bower: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that men serving with the B.A.O.R. who are in Group 27 have been informed that their release is to be deferred? If I send him particulars of such cases, will he look into them?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, certainly. I am not aware of any such order.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War when serving men in Groups 26 and 27 will leave India; and by what date it is anticipated that they will arrive in the United Kingdom and be demobilised.

Mr. Lawson: I hope that all men in Groups 26 and 27 serving in India will arrive back in this country in time for

release within the periods laid down for their groups, but the exact date of the arrival in England and the departure from India of any individual must, of course, depend on the particular ship in which he sails.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that some of these lads are getting very concerned about whether they are going to get back in time or not, and will he make it known that there will be no difficulty about bringing them home in time?

Mr. Lawson: I am aware that men do get disturbed about these matters and that rumours get abroad. The soldier is subject to rumour where there is no definite information to be had, but the answer is that no difficulty will be put in the way.

Mr. Gallacher: The Minister has got it the wrong way about. I would not have known about this if the soldiers had not written to me; I did not write to the soldiers.

Mr. Lawson: I am in no doubt about this matter. I am merely pointing out that I am only too well aware how these rumours get abroad. I realised that when I was in the Far East.

Mr. Steele: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a considerable amount of correspondence is being received by hon. Members in reference to an article which appeared in the "Daily Express"? That article may be the source of the rumour.

Mr. Lawson: I gave an answer to that a few days ago.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War how many men and of what Groups have left India for return to the United Kingdom for demobilisation since nth December, 1945.

Mr. Lawson: Ten thousand and three officers and other ranks left India during the period nth December, 1945, to 6th February, 1946, for release in the United Kingdom. I have no information as to the number in each age and service group.

Mr. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for War when it will be possible for 14868612 Gunner R. D. Wayland, to be released in order to help in his father's building business.

Mr. Lawson: This case has been investigated but it is not one where compassionate release would be justified. No application for. this soldier's release under Class B has been received from the Ministry of Labour and National Service.

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: Would it be in Order, Mr. Speaker, for all hon. Members to put down individual cases?

Mr. Speaker: It would be in Order, but I would deprecate unnecessary Questions of this kind without due cause.

Mr. Renton: Arising out of that point of Order, may I point out that the facts of this case have been presented by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Renton) to the right hon. Gentleman's Department on three or four occasions since last August, and that is the reason why the Question has been put down again?

Major Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War the planned release group dates for officers up to 30th June, 1946.

Mr. Lawson: I will, with permission, circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

The present planned release dates for officers under the provisional programme announced by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service on Thursday last covering the period up to 30th June, 1946, are as follows:

Group 24–20th February to 13th March.

Group 25–14th March to 9th April.

Group 26–10th April to 5th May.

Group 27–6th May to 22nd May.

Group 28–23rd May to 31st May.

Group 29–1st June to 8th June.

Group 30–9th June to 16th June.

Group 31–17th June to 23rd June.

Group 32–To start on 24th June.

Major Wise: asked the Secretary of State for War if instructions have been issued or will be issued without delay, to all overseas commands including C.M.F., relative to Class B block releases for agricultural workers.

Mr. Lawson: The procedure for the release of agricultural workers under Class B is the same as for the bulk release of other classes of men, and I do not see any necessity for issuing any special instructions on the subject.

Mr. Turton: Could not the matter be speeded up as the Class B block releases are working extremely slowly? Could there not be another release group for agricultural workers?

Mr. Lawson: All I can say is that we are dealing with them with despatch.

Mr. Turton: Where, then, does the delay occur?

Mr. William Wells: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will confirm that the power to retain officers and other ranks, due for release in their age and service groups, remains vested in commanders-in-chief only and may not be delegated by them to, or exercised by, subordinate officers.

Mr. Lawson: The competent authorities to authorise the retention of officers or other ranks beyond their normal release date on grounds of military necessity are laid down in release regulations. They are: the War Office; the G.O.C.-in-C. of a Command in the United Kingdom; the G.O.C.-in-C. or G.O.C. of an overseas Command and the C.-in-C, India. The overseas authorities may, at their discretion, delegate their powers to any officer not below the rank of Brigadier.

Captain Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that notices have been posted in orders in M.E.F. to the effect that it is estimated that Group 38 will not be released before the end of October, 1946; whether these notices have been posted with his authority; and whether he has any statement to make.

Mr. Bellenger: I am sure that no such notices would have been published with the authority of the C.-in-C. Middle East. At the same time when allotments are made for granting leave to soldiers during their foreign tour, the overseas theatre has to estimate the progress of release some months ahead in order to ensure leave is granted to such men only as have a reasonable period to serve in the theatre on completion. In making such an estimate all units are reminded that this estimate is based on incomplete information and liable to error. There would be no effect on the despatch to this country of men shortly due for release.

Captain Swingler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that several of the unofficial


broadcasts on demobilisation have appeared in Army Orders in the Mediterranean Forces? Will he issue instructions that this practice should cease?

Mr. Evelyn Walkden: Before the Minister replies, may I ask him whether it is not an extraordinary coincidence that similar information has been circulated in S.E.A.C. and India at the same time as this information was circulated as is mentioned in the Question?

Mr. Bellenger: I should think units everywhere are making unofficial guesses at the progress of release in the future. They must be governed by something of this nature in order to make their plans for sending their men home on L.I.A.P.

Mr. Walkden: Why are the Forces' newspapers, which we control, allowed to circulate information of this kind, which is mischievous and dangerous?

Mr. Bellenger: There is a difference between- official information and unofficial information We control official information as far as we possibly can.

Major Bruce: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that incorrect information of this kind is kept out of official Orders?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes, Sir.

Captain Blackburn: Will the hon. Gentleman make it quite clear that any such estimate mentioned in the Question must be utterly wrong and represents an incorrect rate of release?

Personnel, India (Repatriation)

Lieutenant Herbert Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War at what date officers and other ranks who left the United Kingdom in November, 1942, and are now in India Command, will be repatriated.

Mr. Lawson: British Service officers and other ranks who left the United Kingdom in November, 1942, and are now serving in India Command will become eligible for repatriation on grounds of long service overseas in March this year, when they have completed three years four months overseas. Large numbers of those who left this country in November, 1942. will, of course, have been re-

patriated before they qualify under the Python scheme because they have become eligible for release.

Lieutenant Hughes: While I thank the Minister for that reply, is he aware that the main point of my Question is not when they become eligible for repatriation, but when, in fact, they will be repatriated? This group would be due for repatriation during this month. The point of the Question is to ask the Minister when, in fact, they will return.

Mr. Lawson: As far as I know, repatriation is up to date, but I want to draw attention to the fact that Indian Army officers are the concern of the India Office and not mine.

Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a fairly recent Order which has indicated to the men out there that Python entitlement has been increased to three years, five months; and that there is to be no repatriation during the month of March?

Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of that.

Extended Service

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Secretary of State for War why officers, men and A.T.S. personnel are being kept on in the Service month by month, thus impeding promotion and causing injustice to those who have decided to sign on for two years and who are liable to be sent overseas, while those who are retained from month to month are not so liable.

Mr. Lawson: The arrangement whereby certain officers and other ranks are allowed to extend their service beyond their normal dates for release for short periods is intended to cover those cases where replacements are not immediately available or where the appointments they hold are very shortly to be abolished. It follows that there is no question of promotion of others being impeded or of any injustice to those who have voluntarily deferred their release for periods of six months, a year or two years, as the case may be.

Training Area, Malvern Hills

Major Conant: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that proposals have recently been made for the use of a part of the Malvern Hills as a military training area; and whether he will


undertake that recognised beauty spots such as this which have escaped destruction during the war shall not be acquired for such a purpose.

Mr. Lawson: I am aware that a small acreage of ground near the Malvern Hills has been obtained recently for military training purposes. It is the Government's policy to avoid any fresh requisitions of land wherever possible. This area has had, however, to be brought into use because of a serious outbreak of scarlet fever in the locality where the unit concerned had previously been carrying out essential training. There is no proposal for permanent acquisition of the area.

Major Conant: Would the right hon. Gentleman say for how long it is proposed to hold this ground?

Mr. Lawson: No, I cannot, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman will notice that it is due to an incidental matter—an outbreak of scarlet fever.

Major Conant: Would the right hon. Gentleman undertake that, as soon as the epidemic has disappeared, the unit concerned will return to its former home?

Mr. Lawson: I could not answer that question. All I can say is I am watching this matter of land. I am against the acquisition of any more land in this country I think many Members know that I am examining this matter closely with regard even to the land already held.

Postwar Establishment (Foreign Service)

Commander Douglas Marshall: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will give an assurance that, in the postwar Army, service in Europe will count as foreign service and not as home service.

Mr. Lawson: I am not at present in a position to give any definite assurance on this matter so far as the ultimate postwar Army is concerned.

Singapore (Food Rations)

Flight-Lieutenant Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of dissatisfaction in Singapore over present food rations, and what steps are being taken to improve the general conditions there.

Mr. Lawson: As regards the first part of the Question I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Orpington (Sir W. Smithers) on 29th January. Since I gave that answer, a report has been received that a reduced scale of rations has been brought into effect from 1st February to meet the current critical food situation. The effects of this reduction are at present being examined. As regards conditions generally at Singapore, I can assure my hon. and gallant Friend that the military authorities concerned are doing their utmost to improve matters wherever possible.

Polish Liaison Officers, Germany

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Polish liaison officers are attached to the British troops in Germany;why they are frequently asked to act as interpreters for British officers in conversations with our Soviet allies; and what proportion of them originally came from the Polish Second Corps or other units under the command of General Anders.

Mr. Lawson: The total number of Polish liaison officers employed in the British Zone in Germany is 179. Polish liaison officers are occasionally used as Russian interpreters if they happen to be the only persons available who speak Russian. I understand that none of them come from the Polish 2nd Corps or have served under the command of General Anders.

Mr. Zilliacus: While thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him if he would consider issuing instructions to discontinue the use of Polish liaison officers, in any circumstances, in view of their bitterly anti-Soviet views?

Mr. Lawson: I regret that I cannot give any undertaking of that kind, and I would draw the attention of my hon. Friend to the fact that the answer states that the men concerned who are used have not been under General Anders, and that there are very few, as a matter of fact, serving in that capacity.

Cinemas, C.M.F. (Charge)

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the


reason for the introduction of the provision of charging for admission to Army cinemas in C.M.F.

Mr. Lawson: Before the war, amenities generally were paid for by all ranks. During the war conditions of battle justified the provision of amenities without charge. But as these conditions have now ceased to exist it is, in my opinion, right and reasonable that the peace time practice of payment should gradually be resumed.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: In view of the conditions under which many of these men are, in fact, serving, which would not be tolerated in peace time, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider that decision?

Mr. Lawson: I may state that, as I informed the House on a previous occasion, these amenities were made possible in part by substantial concessions made by the cinema and entertainment industry which they are now unable or unwilling to continue.

Leave

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War the reasons for not instituting periodical leave of personnel of C.M.F. on the same lines as that enjoyed by personnel of B.A.O.R.

Colonel Wheatley: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will consider increasing the leave granted to the Forces serving with C.M.F., in order that they may receive the same treatment in this respect as those serving with B.A.O.R.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. Collins) on 29th January.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware that there is already daily railway and air communication with Northern Italy, will he not reconsider this matter?

Mr. Lawson: Questions of distance and transport, which are involved in this matter, are kept under consideration, I can assure the hon. and gallant Member.

Colonel Wheatley: Is the Minister aware that troops in C.M.F. consider it a very great hardship and that it is unfair to them?

Mr. Lawson: I have looked into this matter and do not see how I can make an improvement, any more than I can in other Commands, for example, the M.E.F.

Foreigners (Enlistment)

General Sir George Jeffreys: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will consider introducing a Foreign Enlistment Bill with the object of raising for the service of this country, a legion composed of foreigners who, as the result of the war are unable or unwilling to return to their own countries, and who, by serving in such a legion, would help us to find the numbers of troops required for overseas service under post-war conditions.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) on 29th January.

Sir G. Jeffreys: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the raising of such a legion would not be in accordance with precedent—the precedent of the King's German Legion—and whether, in view of the fact that foreign soldiers are now being paid for by this country although not serving this country, he will reconsider his decision?

Mr. Lawson: As my right hon. Friend stated, in the answer which I have quoted, this matter was being considered at the time.

Accident, Dover Harbour

Mr. Driberg: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the accident which took place off Dover on 9th January when a number of men serving in 630 Water Transport Company, R.A.S.C., were in danger of drowning; and on the treatment subsequently accorded to these men, details of which have been communicated to his Department.

Mr. Lawson: I have made a full report on the allegation that the men in question did not receive proper treatment after this accident. The complaint appears to be quite unfounded. The Officer Commanding the unit concerned left for Dover immediately he heard of the accident and arrived there on the afternoon of the day of the accident, not three days later as


has been suggested. He ensured that adequate arrangements were made for the accommodation of the crew and authority was given for the majority of them to be sent on a short period of leave two days after the accident. It has also been suggested that the accident itself might have been averted if permission had been given for the vessel to enter the inner harbour, but as the inner harbour was already full it was not possible to allow the vessel to enter.

Sentenced Soldier (Relatives' Visit)

Mr. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for War if he has had an opportunity of investigating the circumstances in which the relatives of Driver Maguire, who is at present serving a sentence of imprisonment at Shepton Mallet, Somerset, were only permitted to see him for 10 minutes after travelling7½ hours, on 22nd December, 1945; and will he take the necessary steps to see that relatives of those serving such sentences are treated with more consideration.

Mr. Lawson: This soldier's relatives were allowed to see him for the full normal period of 20 minutes. No application was made for an extension of the visit, and as the authorities were unaware of the distance Driver Maguire's relatives had travelled they had no reason to suppose that an, extension would be required. If an extension had been applied for it would, in fact, have been granted in accordance with the normal practice of allowing extra time in cases where relatives have travelled for a considerable distance.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that, in addition to the statements in the Question, the relatives of this soldier alleged that not only were they not allowed more than 10 minutes, but that they were told by an official not to come again? Will he also consider the further allegation that the mother had to wait six months, from June to December, before she could obtain any information about what had happened to her son, which caused considerable anxiety? Will he give further consideration to this matter with a view to obviating such anxiety to parents of soldiers serving sentences?

Mr. Lawson: I can tell my hon. Friend that I will give careful attention to his points, but, as a matter of fact, I have

gone thoroughly into this matter so far as I could with the information at my disposal, and the answer I have given is the only one possible in the circumstances.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister aware that there is a regulation that any prisoner being far away from home will be transferred from the prison he is in to the prison nearest to his home while he is having a visit and will he say whether this also applies to military prisoners?

Mr. Lawson: That raises another question.

Sick Personnel (Visits, Italy)

Major Boyd-Carpenter: asked the Secretary of State for War when he pro poses to introduce arrangements under which relatives of soldiers in Italy who are dangerously ill will be able to visit them.

Mr. Lawson: The possibility of introducing such a scheme is at present being examined.

Repatriation Baggage

Mr. Peter Freeman: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the amount of luggage that officers and private soldiers are allowed to bring with them from overseas and the amount also allowed to their respective wives and for each child.

Mr. Lawson: As the answer is necessarily long, I will circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Freeman: Does that answer indicate that the amount of luggage which an officer is allowed to bring home is very considerably in excess of that allowed to private soldiers—four or five times the amount—and, in view of the fact that private soldiers have served a good many years overseas, could the Minister not allow a larger amount to be taken home?

Mr. Lawson: That is rather a different question to the one that is on the Paper. The facts that I am now giving the hon. Gentleman are derived from statistics which are nearly as big as the Chancellor's Budget, I can assure him.

Following is the answer:

Officers, and other ranks who left the United Kingdom before 1st January,

1942, are allowed the full peacetime scale of baggage as follows:—

A.Officers and other ranks posted from the Indian Establishment.



Cwts.


Commander-in-Chief
40


General Officers
36


Brigadiers 
30


Colonels 
30 (a)



18 (b)


Lieutenant-Colonels
20(a)



18(b)


Majors 
16 (a)



15 (b)


Captains
12 (a)



10(b) 


Subalterns
12 (a)



9(b)


Warrant Officers, Class I
3½


Warrant Officers, Class II
2½


Other British ranks
1½


(a) R.A.M.C., R.A.V.C., A.D. Corps. A.E.C. and all staff officers.


b) Other officers.

B. Officers and other ran.ks from Other Stations.



Cubic Feet


General—Brigadier
100


Colonel—Lieut. -Colonel
75


Major—Subaltern
50


Warrant Officer, Class 1
28


Warrant Officer, Class II 
20


Sergeant 
12


Others (as much as they can carry, say, 1 cwt.)



(8 cubic feet are reckoned as 1 cwt.)

Officers who left the United Kingdom on or after 1st January, 1942, are allowed 4 cwt. and other ranks as much as they can carry, say, 1 cwt.

All families arc allowed normal peacetime scales, viz.:

Families of category A, above:

Wife—¾of the officers' scale.

Each child of 12 years of age and over—¼ of the officers' scale.

Each child under 12 years of age—¼i of the officers' scale.

Wife of another rank—2 cwt.

Each child 3 years and over of another rank—½ cwt.

Families of category B, above:

Wife of an officer—too cubic feet.

Child of an officer—10 cubic feet.

Wife of another rank—16 cubic feet.

Child of another rank—4 cubic feet.

Since in present circumstances it is not possible to handle large quantities of accompanied baggage without delaying the turn round of ships, baggage has to be divided between "accompanied" and "unaccompanied" the latter being despatched through the Military Forwarding Organisation.

"Accompanied" baggage of officers and all families is limited to 2 cwt. per individual and of other ranks to the amount they can carry, say, 1 cwt., consisting usually of two kitbags or one kitbag and a suitcase.

Letters to Members(Confidential Information)

Mr. Keeling: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that a letter written on his behalf to the hon. Member for Twickenham about the complaint of a soldier, stated that the commander-in-chief was of the opinion that the officer commanding the unit adopted an unfortunate attitude; whether he is aware that the letter was not marked confidential and enclosed a carbon copy for despatch to the soldier; and whether, in the interests of good order and military discipline, he will give directions for such information to be marked "Confidential" in future.

Mr. Lawson: While the general practice is for letters to be marked "Confidential" when certain types of information are given, I must emphasise that letters addressed to hon. Members are intended for them. A carbon copy is enclosed for the convenience of hon. Members but I must continue to rely on their judgment in these matters.

Mr. Keeling: Does not the Minister know that, when information is sent to an hon. Member which is not to be passed on, the custom of most Government Departments is to mark it "Confidential"?

Mr. Lawson: There are certain cases in which I do that, as hon. Members know. I am not so sure whether it has been overlooked in this matter or not, but I still depend on hon. Members to use their own judgment.

Marriage Ban

Mr. Benn Levy: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is yet able to make a statement on restoring to British Service men the right to marry whom they please, of whatsoever nationality; and if he will clarify the circumstances of and the authority for the existing ban.

Mr. Lawson: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Stokes) on 12th February.

Mr. Levy: Will the Minister tell the House why, in view of the fact that no questions of military security can any longer be involved, it is not possible for him to give a straight answer to this straight question, and whether, moreover, this so-called ban has, in fact, any legal validity whatever?

Mr. Lawson: As the hon. Member and the House know, it is not a matter for me to settle at all. It is outside my Department.

Mr. Levy: If it is outside my right hon. Friend's Department, I must really protest that I should have been referred to his Department when my Question was originally put down to the Prime Minister.

Russian Interpreters, Europe

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the number of former Balts, Esthonians, Latvians and Lithuanians employed as Russian interpreters by His Majesty's forces in Europe; and how many of these Balts were in the Wehrmacht, the Todt Organisation, Rosenberg's propaganda department or worked for the German Government in some capacity during the war.

Mr. Lawson: I regret that the information asked for is not readily available and could not be obtained without a great deal of research.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the military authorities in the American Zone in Germany have recently declared that a very large proportion of the Russian interpreters in their Zone have proved to have very bad collaborationist records, and will he make searching inquiry in regard to them to ensure that no persons who have been in the Wehrmacht, the Todt Organisation or Rosenberg's propaganda department shall be employed by His Majesty's Government as interpreters?

Mr. Lawson: I will take note of the hon. Member's observations.

Indonesia (Japanese Forces)

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Secretary of State for War how many Japanese troops in Indonesia are still bearing arms; and if he will supply full particulars of any British arms or guns, including tanks, supplied to any Japanese forces in Indonesia.

Mr. Lawson: I am making inquiries and as soon as they are completed I will write to the hon. Member.

Mr. Gallacher: In the meantime, if my right hon. Friend finds that Japanese are still in possession of British arms, will he see they are taken away from them?

Officers' Clubs, Germany (British Women)

Captain Francis Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that other ranks in British women's Services are being excluded from British officers' clubs in Germany, whereas German civilian women are admitted; and what steps he will take to lift this ban.

Mr. Lawson: Germans are in no circumstances allowed to be entertained in British officers' clubs or messes in Germany. It is not the normal practice for other ranks of the women's Services to be invited to officers' clubs.

Captain Noel-Baker: If I give the right hon. Gentleman information I have where German women were dancing with British officers while British other ranks were not allowed in, will he look into the matter closely?

Mr. Lawson: Yes, Sir.

Hospital Treatment (Charges)

Mr. Perrins: asked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that soldiers in hospital for treatment are being required to pay 22s. a week expenses; and whether any portion of this amount is being placed to the credit of the individuals concerned.

Mr. Lawson: I am not aware of any such charges. If my hon Friend will send me particulars of the cases he has in mind I will gladly look into them.

Mr. R. S. Hudson: Would not this question and the penultimate question have been saved if the hon. Member had taken the trouble of writing to the Secretary of State for War first, instead of bringing these charges forward?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear clearly the right hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Hudson: I am suggesting that a number of questions might be saved if hon. Members carried out your suggestion, Mr. Speaker, that they should write to the appropriate Minister.

Mr. Perrins: This is a question of principle

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree, but there are cases when hon. Members have written and have failed to get satisfactory answers, so an oral Question is put down to bring the problem to public attention.

Tank Fatality, Cambridge(Inquiry)

Major Symonds: asked the Secretary of State for War when the hon. Member for Cambridge can expect to receive the further communication, promised him on 18th December last, in connection with the tank fatality which occurred in Cambridge on 22nd October, 1945.

Mr. Lawson: I very much regret the delay in sending my hon. and gallant Friend a final answer about this case. I have, however, now considered both the proceedings of the Court of Inquiry in connection with this accident and also the reports of the related proceedings at Cambridge Petty Sessions. As civil proceedings have already either been taken against the other ranks concerned or were not proceeded with, I do not consider that any further action is called for in their case. I understand that the Officer Commanding the unit has never at any time given instructions for convoys to ignore traffic lights, nor so far as can be ascertained have any of his officers. No action is, therefore, called for so far as any officer is concerned. As I stated in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend's Question on 13th November, military drivers must at all times conform to normal traffic signals and road signs.

Major Symonds: Arising out of that reply, is my right hon. Friend aware that at the inquest proceedings it was stated by an officer of the unit concerned that the men, in disregarding traffic lights, were simply obeying instructions, and is he really satisfied that only the men in the tank crew alone are responsible for what occurred?

Mr. Lawson: I made inquiries on that point and I found that in the report of the inquest, the officer commanding the depot from which the tank came is reported as having said that it was the practice of despatch-riders to see a convoy through irrespective of lights, and that he thought there was an order in respect of that, but had not checked up. It was this report which drew the attention of the Press to the case.

Pay and Allowances

. Mr. Garry Allighan: asked the Secretary of State for War the amount which has been estimated, in assessing postwar

pay and allowances, as the minimum sum the unmarried man would otherwise have to spend on the items of living with which he is provided free.

Mr. Bellenger: No precise estimate has been made of the "home saving" of the single man but as my hon. Friend will appreciate it will be larger than that of his married colleague.

Mr. Garry Allighan: In view of the fact that 35s. was laid down in the 1942 White Paper as representing this Service, could we not now know what the figure will be under the new arrangement?

Mr. Bellenger: I think my hon. Friend was not in the House when that figure was hotly debated and contested when it first appeared. This figure of 20s. is perhaps nearer the mark.

Mr. Garry Allighan: The question is not whether it was hotly debated or not but whether the figure in the new set-up is going to approximate the 1942 figure of 35s. rather than 20s.

Mr. Speaker: Viscount Hinchingbrooke.

Mr. Piratin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. I think you have omitted Question Number 68.

Mr. Speaker: I have not overlooked it but that would have been the fourth Question put down by the hon. Member and hon. Members are only allowed three on one day.

Compassionate Posting

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: asked the Secretary of State for War for what reasons compassionate posting has now been limited to cases of extreme distress or dangerous illness; and whether this new ruling affects the conditions of compassionate release.

Mr. Bellenger: No new ruling on compassionate postings has been given and the only new ruling on compassionate release has been in the direction of relaxation. Compassionate postings are necessarily being much limited owing to the reduction in the number of units at home and the corresponding difficulty of finding a suitable unit to which the man could be posted. Generally speaking, compassionate release is found to provide a more satisfactory solution.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Secretary of State had written to me to the effect that compassionate posting had been limited owing to the large number of cases which were coming forward claiming that privilege? Will he now quite definitely state that is not so?

Mr. Bellenger: Obviously, I must consult with my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend. The position is as I have stated it in my reply.

Campaign Medals

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for War what are the conditions under which all ranks of allied armies, serving in complete allied units and not filling individual appointments in British War Establishments, may be considered to have qualified for British campaign medals in respect of service during the 1939-45 war; and whether such conditions apply equally to all operational theatres.

Mr. Bellenger: The question whether British campagn stars should be awarded to those of our allies who are serving, or who have served, in their own national land contingents in a theatre of operations under British command is being examined.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-PRISONERS OF WAR

Rank

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will reconsider the regulations under which prisoners of war are obliged to relinquish, after arrival in this country, the rank which they held throughout the war as prisoners of war; and whether, in view of the fact that there was no possibility of their obtaining substantive rank during the period they were prisoners of war, arrangements can be made to apply special conditions.

Mr. Lawson: Prisoners of war were by a special concession allowed to retain then-acting and temporary ranks while in captivity and continued to receive the pay of their paid acting or temporary rank for 61 days after repatriation. When they cease to be prisoners of war they must be subject to the normal wartime promotion rules like any other officer or soldier. In the case of Regular officers time spent as a prisoner of war counted towards substantive time promotion and those who

were passed over for substantive promotion while prisoners are now being reconsidered.

Charitable Contributions (Exchange Rate)

Mr. Turton: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he is now able to announce any change of policy affecting the rate of exchange of charitable contributions made by officers and other ranks prisoners of war.

Mr. Lawson: In so tar as these were contributed by United Kingdom prisoners of war, His Majesty's Government have decided to accept responsibility for the payment of funds collected by British Commonwealth prisoners of war in Germany for charitable or communal purposes. They will be converted into sterling at the preferential rate of exchange applicable to personal savings from pay or working pay, namely, 15 Reichsmarks to the£. His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom are unable to accept responsibility for contributions made to such funds by personnel from the Dominion Forces. They have informed all Dominion Governments and the Government of India of their decision; they have heard from His Majesty's Government in Australia and from the Government of India that they are willing to share the responsibility. Final answers have not yet been received from the other Dominion Governments concerned in these circumstances, I am taking steps to make payment in respect of funds where I am satisfied as to the amount, the purpose and the arrangements made for disposal. It will not, however, be possible at present to make any payment in respect of contributions to such funds from Dominion personnel other than members of the Australian Forces.

Mr. Turton: While I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his very generous reply, will he say whether these charities could make any application in order to get the balance of the money paid to them?

Mr. Lawson: I have no information on that point.

Oral Answers to Questions — BROADCASTING B.B.C. Charter

Charter

Mr. Janner: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the


B.B.C. Charter has not previously been renewed without a thorough investigation by a committee of inquiry and that important changes in broadcasting policy and technique have taken place during the war, he will now give an undertaking that before the current Charter is renewed an independent investigation, in the public interest, will be made by a competent and representative committee.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have given the fullest consideration to this matter and have decided that no independent investigation is necessary before the Charter is renewed.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in relation to the B.B.C. and will he take steps to reconsider the decision?

The Prime Minister: We shall come to a decision. I think that is the best way to get rid of the anxiety.

Mr. Butcher: Will this House have an opportunity to discuss the matter?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and the hon. Member will realise that the Charter comes up for renewal.

Captain Crookshank: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the mere fact that it is a Government decision does not automatically allay suspicion or even disarm all criticism, and would he not reconsider this, because it would ease the passage of the new Charter if it were founded on some sort of inquiry?

The Prime Minister: I think the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that this matter was fully considered by the last Government and this Government, and the general view was that investigation was needed.

Wireless Licences

Mrs. Castle: asked the Minister of Information (1) how many wireless licences are in issue at the present time; to what extent he estimates that evasion of payment may be taking place; and what steps he is taking to prevent evasion. (2) If he will postpone the decision to increase the cost of wireless licences until more energetic steps have been taken to collect the revenue already due.

The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): There are at present 9,982,050 wireless licences in force. It is difficult to estimate the extent of evasion of payment of licences, but there is no reason to suppose that this is taking place on a serious scale. Successful steps have been, and are being, taken to detect it and to apply the appropriate remedies. My right hon. Friend cannot therefore agree to postpone the inrcease in the cost of wireless licences as suggested.

Mrs. Castle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is apparently no supervision of the payment of licences in the ordinary home, and there is a feeling that it is very unjust to those who lawfully pay their wireless licences to have the amount of those licences doubled while others are let off scot-free, whose income might remedy the deficit?

Mr. Morrison: I think that is a rather extreme doctrine. If that were to be applied to the observance of all laws I do not know whether any law would exist.

Broadcasting, Scotland

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Colonel GOMME-Duncan: .—To ask the Minister of Information, what amount was spent in Scotland by the B.B.C. on broadcasting in 1945.

Mr. Speaker: Colonel Gomme-Duncan.

Hon. Members: Where is the Minister of Information?

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Mr. Speaker, may I say, on a point of Order, or perhaps as a protest, that this is rather typical of the Government's attitude to Scottish affairs?

Later—

Mr. Kirkwood: Mr. Speaker, on a point of Order. What about Question No. 61?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid I cannot answer it. As soon as the Minister arrives he will deal with it.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. Harold Wilson): In the absence abroad of my right hon. Friend I have been asked to reply to Question No. 61. The broadcasting services in Scotland are an integral part of the whole service provided by the B.B.C.


on a national basis and I regret that it is not practicable to give separate figures of expenditure in respect of services available to listeners in Scotland.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I distinctly asked how much was spent in Scotland; not on Scottish broadcasting, but in Scotland. There must be receipts for what was spent in Scotland.

Mr. Wilson: I will take that up with the B.B.C. On asking them for the information so far, it was not available. I will put it in the way it has been put to me.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: It is very unsatisfactory. I give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. De la Bère: I am very anxious to join in.

Home Service (Reception)

Mr. Gooch: asked the Minister of Information if he is aware of the difficulty long experienced by listeners to the Home Service of the B.B.C, in many parts of Norfolk, the reception often being inaudible; and will the B.B.C. increase the strength of the Home Service transmission there, or alternatively, provide a regional station to serve East Anglia.

Mr. Wilson: My right hon. Friend regrets that he has nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Woodbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Hare) on 30th October, and the reply to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) which will be circulated in the Official Report.

Mr. Gooch: Does my hon. Friend realise that a considerable number of Norfolk residents have to tune in to the Midland Regional stations when they want to hear the Home Service? In view of the fact that the cost of licences is going up, does not he think the people who listen in are entitled to listen to whatever station they choose?

Mr. Wilson: Yes, Sir, that question is fully realised and discussions are going on at the moment with regard to improving the services. Application has been made by the B.B.C. for an improvement and an increase in the size of the mast at Brookmans Park. Discussions on that question are still continuing, and no decision has yet been reached

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: In view of the many complaints that have been made against the B.B.C. during the last few months, on what do they propose to use the increased income which they are going to get now the licence is raised?

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (CO-PARTNERSHIP)

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: asked the Prime Minister to what extent, and into which industries that are to be nationalised, it is the Government's intention to introduce the principle of industrial co-partnership.

The Prime Minister: The general plan of organisation of nationalised industries provides for the establishment of a National Board or similar body charged with the responsibilities of management, and it is not proposed to provide in legislation for any particular system or arrangement on the lines referred to.

Colonel Thornton-Kemsley: Does not the Socialist Party believe in industrial co-partnership?

The Prime Minister: I have always understood that industrial co-partnership was a method applicable to private control of industry.

Oral Answers to Questions — SERVING SMALLHOLDERS (COMPASSIONATE RELEASE)

Mr. Grimston: asked the Prime Minister if he will give instructions to the Service Departments to speed up consideration of applications for compassion ate release from Servicemen anxious to get back to work on smallholdings which are short of labour, or the work on which is otherwise handicapped by the age or illness of the occupier.

The Prime Minister: Applications from smallholders for compassionate release should only arise where the man was a smallholder before he was called up for service and if his holding is now derelict or being run by a wife or friend. These applications are few in number and are dealt with quickly by the Service Departments. Applications from men previously employed on smallholdings are not compassionate releases and would have to be dealt with through the Class B machinery.

Mr. Grimston: Is the Prime Minister aware that the cases I have in mind are those where a father has been a smallholder, has worked very hard during the war, is now infirm and partially incapacitated, and cannot carry on unless his son is allowed to come home and work on the smallholding? In view of the appeal that has gone out to the farming, community, does not the right hon. Gentleman think x that he could give a rather more sympathetic reply?

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Does the right hon. Gentleman really think these cases are dealt with quickly by the Service Departments?

The Prime Minister: That is my information—that they deal with them as quickly as possible. I understand the hon. Member was asking that special attention be given to these cases, but, of course, they fall to be considered with other cases of persons who succeed to businesses and so forth.

Colonel Thorton-Kemsley: Is it not a fact that instructions have been issued to war agricultural executive committees that the number of compassionate releases of this type must be drastically reduced in view of the larger number of block releases under Class B?

The Prime Minister: I have not heard of that. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question down.

Mr. De la Bère: It is no good giving with one hand and taking away with the other.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORLD FOOD SHORTAGE (RUSSIAN ASSISTANCE)

Mr. Gammans: asked the Prime Minister if he has made, or proposes to make, any approach to the Government of the U.S.S.R. to assist India with supplies of food in the present critical situation in view of the fact that Russia is now in a position to abolish rationing restrictions.

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Member will have seen, the Indian representative at the General Assembly has already addressed a public appeal to the Soviet Union for help. I greatly hope that all possible help in the supply of food will be given by the Soviet Union, not only to India but also to neighbouring countries in Europe.

Mr. Gammans: Would the Prime Minister say whether the appeal made by Sir Ramaswami Mudaliar is going to be supported by His Majesty's Government in this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I think there was general support for that, and it was made public in the most effective manner.

Mr. Gammans: Does the Prime Minister propose to make representations to the Soviet Government?

The Prime Minister: I think representations have already been made by the Indian Government most effectively. The hon. Gentleman can be assured that we shall do all we can to help the Indian Government.

Mr. McGovern: Will the Prime Minister see that no scheme is developed that would succeed in putting the Russians into India, as it would be even more difficult to get them out than to get the British out?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any arrangement has been made to ship soya beans from Manchuria to India?

The Prime Minister: That is an entirely different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (GOVERNMENT POLICY)

Mr. McAllister: asked the Prime Minister, if the Government still accept the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Distribution of the Industrial Population with regard to the decentralisation of population and industry from congested and overgrown towns and with regard to the guidance of industrial location; what steps are being taken to give effect to these recommendations; and which Minister is responsible for the co-ordination of the different aspects involved.

The Prime Minister: The policy of the Government on the distribution of industry continues to be that stated in the third chapter of the White Paper on Employment Policy (Cmd. 6527). The courses of action there outlined are being vigorously pursued by the many Departments concerned. The President of the


Board of Trade is responsible to Parliament for all general aspects of the policy

Mr. McAllister: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he could give some assurance that the Government will accept a decentralisation policy as outlined in the Report, and which the President of the Board of Trade in the Coalition Government assured the House had been accepted in principle?

The Prime Minister: As I have said, we accepted the same policy laid down in the White Paper. I think my hon. Friend will find that in the White Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

D.P. Camps (Representative)

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in view of His Majesty's Government's assurances to U.N.O. that D.P. camps under British control would not be allowed to indulge in anti-Soviet activities, whether he will take action in the case of the Latvian ex-Colonel Yakutas, recognised by the British military authorities as the chief representative of D.P.s at Haus Zieblick, Ratzeburg, Kreis Lauenburg, who boasts of his medals received from Hitler, Prince Starhemberg and Franco, for gallantry in anti-Bolshevik action and urges on British officers the importance of Anglo-American support for German rearmament so as to win the coming war against the U.S.S.R.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): I am having inquiries made, but owing to communication difficulties in Germany I regret that the information is not yet available. As soon as it is I will communicate with my hon. Friend.

Control Commission (British Officers)

Mr. Vane: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the total officer establishment of the British element of the Control Commission, Germany; what is the present officer strength; and whether he is satisfied that the revised conditions of service are attracting the most suitably qualified officers.

Mr. J. Hynd: The establishment for officer grades (Service and civilian) is under review but is not likely to exceed

8,000. The present officer strength is 6,456 of whom 2,327 are civilians and 4,129 officers of the Armed Forces. With the revised conditions of Service, no difficulty is expected in obtaining suitably qualified recruits for the general run of posts.

Police Trainees

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of trainees at the B.A.O.R. police training centre who, during or after training, have been rejected for the service as being unsuitable owing to their adherence to Nazi doctrine; and what proportion of successful trainees does this represent.

Mr. J. Hynd: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the police training school at Hiltrup where selected German police officers are trained as police instructors. I am informed that not a single trainee at that school has been rejected because of adherence to the Nazi doctrine.

Mr. Austin: While thanking my hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him if he is aware that the school I have in mind is one I visited at Munster, and would he please give me information with regard to the ranks, and not officers?

Mr. Hynd: The information asked for in the Question did not make it clear whether any particular school was referred to. It was assumed that it was the school at Hiltrup, which is a school for the training of instructors, mainly of officer status, and the information has been supplied on that basis, but if my hon. Friend has any other school in mind, perhaps he would put a Question down.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Postwar Credits

Mr. Janner: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, when drawing up his Budget proposals, he will give consideration to the possibility of making some arrangements for a payment of postwar credits, at an early date, to people now over 70 years of age; and if he will give an estimate of what would be the sum of money involved.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Dalton): I must ask my hon. Friend to await my Budget Statement. The sum involved would be about£20 million.

Silver Coinage

Mr. McKie: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is aware of the in convenience being caused to the public by the shortage of Is. pieces and the abundance of 2s. 6d. pieces; and if he will make a statement thereon.

Mr. Dalton: No, Sir. The Mint issues what the banks order. Last year they issued more than 29,500,000 shillings and close on 20,000,000 half-crowns.

American Visitors' Earnings (Dollar Currency)

Mr. Austin: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will carefully examine the question of the conversion into dollar currency of the earnings in sterling of entertainers here on flying visits from U.S.A., with a view to such currency being used to better advantage in the national interest.

Mr. Dalton: Such earnings are now freely convertible into dollars; and I am not prepared to vary this arrangement at present.

Mr. Austin: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask him to bear in mind that widespread resentment is felt in this country at the proposed expenditure of£10,000 on a certain crooner who, it is anticipated, will visit this country in the near future?

Mr. Dalton: I expect the person in question hopes to make something by coming here and, therefore, no doubt, is appreciated by some, though not by others. One can always turn him off.

War Damage Payments

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, in view of the representations made to him by deputations from Norwich City Council, Coventry City Council and other badly bombed towns that their reconstruction plans are being hampered by the difficulty arising from the conversion of a cost-of-Zworks payment into a value payment where a trader is not allowed, on planning grounds, to rebuild on his old site, he is taking steps to resume the conversion of the value payment into a cost-of-works payment in such cases; and if the whole question of the in adequacy of value payments is being re considered having regard to their generally discouraging effect on rebuilding.

Mr. Dalton: I have carefully considered this matter, but it is difficult to justify better treatment, in this particular respect, for the owner of a damaged property than for the owner of an undamaged property in a reconstruction area. And such would be the result of this proposal.

. Mr. Gammans: Does not the Chancellor realise that this anomaly and injustice is doing a tremendous amount to hold up the very replanning that he and the whole country desire?

MINISTER'S SPEECH (PRESS DISTRIBUTION)

Mr. Raikes: asked the Minister of Information why the recent speech delivered by the Lord President of the Council at Peckham was distributed by his Department to the Press on 11th February, 1946.

Mr. H. Morrison: Late in the afternoon of nth February the Ministry of Information were asked by a number of journalists whether they could get for them advance copies of this speech, which was to be given the same evening. It was only when the text of this speech was received at the Ministry that the officer in charge realised that it contained passages of a party political character. He decided that the Press would prefer to receive it informally through him rather than encounter the delay which would result if he returned it. He therefore had a few copies made for the Press representatives who were waiting. No general distribution of the speech was made by the Ministry of Information. I regret, however, that departmental facilities were used in this way, and steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence.

Captain Crookshank: May I ask what exactly is the practice of dealing with Ministry of Information Questions? The Parliamentary Secretary replies to some, the Lord President to others and sometimes neither of them appear. It is very confusing to those of my hon. Friends who want to conduct cross-examinations.

Mr. H. Morrison: As the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Minister of Information is away and these Questions are distributed and divided according to their nature between myself and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the


Ministry of Works. I think it is all right. There are certain Questions which I think it best I should take myself. I certainly thought this one, on which I was going to put my head on the block, ought to be taken by myself.

Captain Crookshank: It may be all right but it has not been all right today.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Must not the Ministry of Information be very innocent with regard to a Question without any political allusions in it?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is a fortunate thing that we are all innocent from time to time.

CANADIAN SECRET INFORMATION (LEAKAGE)

Mr. Eden: by Private Noticeasked the Prime Minister whether he has been in communication with the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the reported leakage of information of a secret character, and whether he has any statement to make.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; but as the matter is in the hands of the Canadian Government and as it is sub judice I do not think it proper to say anything more about it.

Mr. Gallacher: In view of the sensationalism we are getting about international spy rings, will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to publish the amount of money spent by this country in the international spy racket?

MALAYA (PLANTERS' WIVES)

Major Sir Basil Neven-Spence: asked the Secretary of State for War if he will take immediate steps to allow the wives of planters to rejoin their husbands in Malaya.

Mr. Bellenger: The Military Administration in Malaya is anxious that wives of planters should return to Malaya at the earliest possible date. The food and accommodation situation is such, how-ever, that general permission for wives to return cannot yet be given. Priority must be given to the return of commercial undertakings. I am advised that if in individual cases a husband can satisfy the

Military Administration that accommodation for his wife is available and that rations from official stocks will not be demanded, there would be no difficulty in obtaining their agreement to the issue of a permit for the return of the wife.

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many of these planters were interned in Malaya during the whole time of the Japanese occupation, and have been separated from their wives for many years? Will he consider doing his best to give them as much priority as is possible?

Mr. Bellenger: We have every sympathy with these unfortunate people.

INDIA (CABINET MINISTERS' MISSION)

The Prime Minister: The House will recall that on 19th September, 1945, on his return to India after discussions with His Majesty's Government, the Viceroy made a statement of policy, in the course of which he outlined the positive steps to be taken, immediately after the central and provincial elections to promote, in conjunction with the leaders of Indian opinion, the early realisation of full self-government in India. Those steps include:
(1) Preparatory discussions with the elected representatives of British India, and with the Indian States, in order to secure the widest measure of agreement as to the method of framing a Constitution;
(2)The setting up of a Constitution- making body; and
(3)The bringing into being of an Executive Council having the support of the main Indian parties.
The elections at the centre were held at the end of last year, and in some of the provinces they are also over and responsible Governments are in process of formation. In the other provinces polling dates are spread over the next few weeks. With the approach of the end of the electoral campaign His Majesty's Government have been considering the most fruitful method of giving effect to the programme to which I have referred.
In view of the paramount importance not only to India and to the British Commonwealth but to the peace of the world of a successful outcome of the discussions


with the leaders of Indian opinion, His Majesty's Government have decided to send out to India a special mission composed of Cabinet Ministers to seek in assocation with the Viceroy an agreement with these leaders on the principles and procedure relating to the constitutional issue.
Accordingly, with the approval of His Majesty The King, His Majesty's Government have decided that the Secretary of State for India, the President of the Board of Trade and the First Lord of the Admiralty shall proceed to India for this purpose towards the end of March. This course has the full concurrence of the Viceroy.
I feel sure that the House will give its support and goodwill to the Ministers and to the Viceroy in these discussions, in which the future of 400 million people and crucial issues both for India and the world will be at stake.
I should add that during the absence of these Ministers, I shall myself assume responsibility for Admiralty business and the Lord President of the Council will be in charge of the Board of Trade. So far as the India and Burma Offices are concerned, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State will be in charge during the Secretary of State's absence. But he will be able to rely on my personal advice whenever it is required, and he will refer important issues to myself, particularly those affecting Burma, where the Governor will not like the Viceroy, be in personal touch with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Eden: May I ask the Prime Minister one or two questions arising out of this very important statement? In the first place, while it is clear, I presume, that the Secretary of State for India will carry with him in his person the authority of Secretary of State, can we also be assured that, in respect of all matters that would normally require Cabinet decisions, there will be reference to Cabinet authority in London—that is to say, that these three Ministers will not carry with them anything in the nature of Cabinet authority? Secondly, may I ask the Prime Minister whether Parliament will have an opportunity of discussing any developments of policy that may arise out of this visit? Thirdly, although it is hard to say at present, it may be that we should like an opportunity to discuss India before the Ministers leave, and if so, will there

be an opportunity? Finally, and most important of all, may I ask the Prime Minister to make it clear that the main lines of British policy in respect of India still stand—that is to say that it is the responsibility of Indians, and not of Ministers from this country, to bring about a Constitution-making body?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the first point, it is clear that it is no use sending out responsible Ministers, unless they have a degree of responsibility to act, and clearly, therefore, within the terms laid down by Cabinet decisions, these Ministers must be able to act. Of course, on major matters of policy they will refer back for Cabinet decision, but if they are going to negotiate they must have power to negotiate, as would the Viceroy, if he were acting on behalf of the Government. On the second point, with regard to the matter coming before the House, clearly anything arising out of these discussions will be the subject of legislation and will have to come before the House. On the third point, concerning a Debate, I am not sure whether it is advisable to have a Debate before they go out, but, in any case, there is a Bill coming down to this House which is designed to give the Viceroy more elbow room in the formation of his Cabinet, on which discussion could arise. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would discuss with the Lord President of the Council whether that is an adequate opportunity or not. Undoubtedly, it is our intention to speed up machinery in agreement with the Indians, whereby the Indian people themselves will decide their destiny.

Mr. Sorensen: May I ask whether there is any time limit placed on this Mission, which will take with it the best wishes of the House in the attempt to solve this problem?

The Prime Minister: There is, of course, no time limit laid down. One hopes that they will not be kept out there too long. I echo the hon. Member's hope—there is no harm in hoping—that they will be successful in as short a time as possible.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS BILL

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 78.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).— [The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee and on re-committal), further considered.

CLAUSE 29.— (Adjustments for successive accidents.)

3.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Lindgren): I beg to move, in page 20, line 22, leave out from "exceeding," to "twenty-two," in line 25 and insert:
" (i) if the beneficiary is over the age of eighteen or is for the time being entitled to an increase of benefit in respect of a child or adult dependent, forty-five shillings;
(ii) if the beneficiary is between the ages of seventeen and eighteen and not for the time being entitled as aforesaid, thirty-three shillings and ninepence;
(iii) if the beneficiary is under the age of seventeen and not for the time being entitled as aforesaid."
This Amendment is consequential on the new Clauses which were included in the Bill yesterday to provide for the 17-18 age group.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 20, line 26, at end, insert:
 (b) the provision of this Act excluding the right to injury benefit for the first three days of incapacity resulting from the relevant accident unless there are twelve such days during the injury benefit period shall, in relation to two or more accidents happening at intervals not greater than thirteen weeks as the result of each of which he is incapable of work on some day during its injury benefit period, apply so as to permit of there being taken into account, for the purpose of making up the said twelve days in the case of each of those accidents, any days which may be so taken into account in the case of any other of them,
This gives some relief in regard to waiting days in cases where two or more successive accidents are covered by the Bill, each of which causes incapacity and is

suffered by the same person at successive intervals of not more than 13 weeks. In such circumstances, the days of incapacity from each accident, count towards the total 12 days' qualifying period.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 30.— (Overlapping benefits.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 21, line 29, leave out from "death, "to "in," in line 30, and insert:
 by way of a pension, or by way of an allowance payable to her as having the care of a child.
This Amendment is a drafting Amendment, and is consequential upon Amendments which were agreed to by the House yesterday, in connection with the death benefit Clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.— (Adjustment of arrears of benefit in respect of out-door relief, etc.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 41, leave out "disablement."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

CLAUSE 32.— (Disqualifications, forfeitures and suspensions.)

The following Amendments stood on the Order Paper:

In page 22, line 25, leave out "that any person who fails," and insert:
 for the forfeiture of injury benefit by a claimant or beneficiary for failure.

In line 27, leave out from the last "of" to end of line 29, and insert
 the relevant injury, and."— [Mr. James Griffiths.]

Mr. Lindgren: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may we consider together the two Amendments, which are both drafting Amendments, consequential upon what was done in the House yesterday?

The Solicitor-General (Major Sir Frank Soskice): I beg to move, in page 22, line 25, leave out "that any person who fails," and insert:
 for the forfeiture of injury benefit by a claimant or beneficiary for failure.
This Amendment is a drafting Amendment and is proposed for the following reason: In Committee, attention was called to the fact that Clause 32 (2) of the Bill, for some reason, used first the


expression "right to any injury benefit", and then the expression" forfeiture of benefit." It was asked whether there was any significance in the use of the word "right" in the first place, and not in the second place. There was no intention to discriminate between the two cases and the Amendment eliminates that distinction.

Mr. Osbert Peake: May I ask the learned Solicitor-General if he would put the Amendment in such a way as to save the later Amendment in my name: In page 22, line 29, after "period," insert "not exceeding six weeks."

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that it might be in Order to insert the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment after the word "benefit" in the first of these two Amendments.

3.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: There is another Amendment which I think it would be logical to move first, namely, in Clause 32, page 22, line 27, to leave out from the last "of" to the end of line 29, and insert "the relevant injury, and."

Mr. Speaker: If that Amendment is agreed to, the right hon. Gentleman will then be unable to move his Amendment.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "benefit," to insert "for a period not exceeding six weeks."
The object of the Amendment to the Amendment is to bring the disqualification provided by Clause 32 of this Bill into line with similar disqualifications provided in Clause 13 of the National Insurance Bill. Clause 32 (2) of the Bill before us provides that:
 Regulations may provide that any person who fails without reasonable cause to comply with requirements of Subsection (4) of Section twenty-five of this Act in respect of any injury shall forfeit his right to any injury benefit in respect thereof for such period as may be prescribed…
Subsection (4) of Clause 25 is the one

we were discussing last night and it lays down:
 Without prejudice to Subsection (2) of this Section, it shall be the duty of any person claiming or entitled to injury benefit in respect of any injury not to behave in any manner calculated to retard his recovery.
The forfeiture of benefit under Subsection (2) of Clause 32 is absolute. We compare that position with the provisions made in the National Insurance Bill with regard to unemployment and sickness and we find in that Bill?—1 quote from Clause 13 (2):
 A person shall be disqualified for receiving unemployment benefit for such period not exceeding six weeks 
under certain circumstances. Subsection (3) of the same Clause lays down:
 Regulations may provide for disqualifying a person for receiving sickness benefit for such period not exceeding six weeks 
if he is
(a) incapable of work through his own misconduct or
(b) fails without good cause to attend for or submit himself to such medical or other examination or treatment as may be required in accordance with the regulations, or to observe any prescribed rules of behaviour.
These words are identical with the words included in this Bill and we, therefore, suggest that it would be quite unfair that a man should forfeit his benefit wholly and totally if he fails to comply with certain provisions of this Bill, whereas if he makes a similar failure in respect of sickness he only forfeits his benefit for six weeks. I am not quite sure if my Amendment goes sufficiently far. There is a further disqualification provided in Clause 32, which is of a somewhat wider character and I wonder if the provision limiting a disqualification period of six weeks ought not to be inserted in another part of Clause 32 in order to bring the matter into line with the provisions in the National Insurance Bill.

The Solicitor-General: We on this side of the House accept what has been put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). If I may say so, I think we might land ourselves in a difficulty if we accepted the Amendment put forward. If you, Mr. Speaker, decide to call the Amendment to which I have referred in Clause 32, page 22, line 27, which is a necessary Amendment to make sense of the Clause, we would undertake, in another place, to


bring about the object which the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. That will be put down in the form of a proviso and both objects which he has in mind would be embodied in the proviso, the limitation to apply to both kinds of disqualification. If we put in the proposed words, the Clause would not make sense, and the only way to make the Clause sensible is to accept the Amendment, which deals with line 27, because it is necessarily involved with the first Amendment, and then deal with the argument of the right hon. Gentleman by a proviso introduced in another place

Mr. Peake: In view of the undertaking of the Solicitor-General, I think the best course would be for me to withdraw my Amendment. I cannot see any sense putting words into an Amendment which are not going to be embodied in the Bill. I beg leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.

Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Solicitor-General: Mr. Speaker, will you now allow me to move the second Amendment at the bottom of page 695, which is necessarily involved with the first Amendment?

Mr. Speaker: The previous Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman is still under consideration and we have not yet got the words inserted.

Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to move, in page 22, line 27, leave out from the last "of" to the end of line 29, and insert "the relevant injury, and."
I have already explained why we seek to introduce these words. The Amendment is consequential, and is necessary to make a success of the previous Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 35.— (Provisions as to maintenance and incapacity for self-support.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 23, line 41, after "mainly," insert "or to a substantial extent."
This relates to an alteration which is required in Clause 31, and these words have been drafted to enable that to be done.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 24, line 1, after "Subsection," insert:
 as respects the circumstances in which a. person is to be deemed to be wholly or mainly maintaining another person.

In line 12, leave out from "of," to end of line 13, and insert "those regulations."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, at end, insert:
 (3) Regulations under Subsection (1) of this Section may further provide, for the purposes of Sections twenty-two and twenty-three of this Act, that where—
(a) a person was partly maintained by each of two or more insured persons of whom the first mentioned person was a parent within the meaning of the said Section twenty-two, or a relative prescribed for the purposes of the said Section twenty-three, as the case may be; and
(b) the insured persons have died as the result of accidents against which they were insured under this Act;
the parent or relative shall be treated as having received from such of those insured persons as may be prescribed contributions to his maintenance equal to the aggregate amount which they were together contributing before the accidents happened, and as having received nothing from the others.
By this Amendment we are enabled, by regulation, to determine what is to be paid to a parent by way of a pension or a gratuity, in a case of death by accident, involving two sons who have made contributions which will be aggregated for the purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Griffiths: I beg to move, in line 16, leave out Subsection (3), and insert:
(3) In the case of death benefit, except where the deceased at his death was, or would but for the relevant accident have been, wholly maintaining the beneficiary—
(a) the weekly rate of any pension payable to the beneficiary as a parent within the meaning of the said Section twenty-two, or as a relative prescribed for the purposes of the said Section twenty-three, shall not exceed the weekly rate of the contributions which the deceased at his death was or would but for the relevant accident have been making to the beneficiary's maintenance; and
(b)the amount of any gratuity payable to the beneficiary as such a parent or relative shall not exceed such multiple of the weekly rate of the contributions aforesaid as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations:


Provided that in the case of a relative who was at the deceased's death a child, or is a posthumous son or daughter of the deceased, references in this Subsection to the weekly rate of the contributions aforesaid shall be construed as references to the weekly rate of the contributions which the deceased might have been expected to have been making to the' relative's maintenance when he ceased to be a child.
This Amendment is designed to give us power, by regulation, to make an adjustment in a pension or gratuity to the maximum limit which is fixed under the Bill. It re-words the Subsection in consequence of other changes which have been made.

Mr. Peake: I think paragraph (a)of the new Subsection is clear. As I understand, it means that where maintenance has been less than total the dependants may receive, by way of contribution or allowance, a sum equal to the extent of the previous contribution from the deceased person. Paragraph. (b) is a little obscure. It states:
The amount of any gratuity payable to the beneficiary as such a parent or relative shall not exceed such multiple of the weekly rate of the contributions aforesaid as may be determined by or in accordance with regulations.
These gratuities are to be by way of a small lump sum where there has been dependence which is substantial, but which has not been dependence which is denned as "wholly or mainly dependant." I am puzzled as to why, when the Minister has fixed the maximum for these gratuities at£78 in one case, and£52 in another, he has not made his multiple 52 times the weekly rate of contribution. I feel sure that is his purpose, but why it should be necessary to have a separate set of regulations to do what might have been done simply in the Bill, without introducing confusing words about the multiple of the weekly rate, I do not know. Perhaps the Minister can explain the point.

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry if it looks complicated, but we were advised that it was desirable to do this in this way.

Mr. Peake: Would the right hon.Gentleman reconsider this matter, because in another place the words, "52 times," could be introduced to make the point clear to all concerned.

Mr. Griffiths: I will certainly consider that.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.— (Persons to determine questions and claims.)

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 25, line 13, leave out sub-paragraph (vi) and insert:
(vi) how the limitations under the Fourth Schedule to this Act on the benefit payable in respect of any death are to be applied in the circumstances of any case.
This Amendment is consequential upon the new death benefit provisions which have been included in the Bill, and makes the Minister, and not the insurance officer, the local appeal tribunal, or the Commissioner, responsible for deciding between competing claims for-death benefit, subject to the provisions of the Fourth Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.— (Appeals to and decisions of local appeal tribunals.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 31, line 1, leave out from beginning to "by," in line 2, and insert:
 a person's right to benefit is, or may be, under the Fourth Schedule to this Act, affected.
This Amendment provides for appeals to local tribunals, and is consequential upon the Amendment of the death benefit provisions already included in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.— (Appeals to Commissioner.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 31, line 22, leave out from beginning to "by," in line 23, and insert:
whose right to benefit is or may be, under the Fourth Schedule to this Act, affected.
This Amendment provides for appeals to the Commissioner, and is also consequential upon the Amendments to the death benefit provisions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 31, line 29, leave out "the chairman of."

In line 36, leave out "by the chairman."

In line 40, leave out "the chairman of."

In line 45, leave out "chairman," and insert "tribunal."

In line 45, after "to," insert "s them or."

In page 32, line 4, leave out "the chairman of a local appeal tribunal


grants,"and insert the "local appeal tribunal grant."

In line 5, leave out "he," and insert "they."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Clement Davies: On a point of Order. Are you not calling, Sir, my Amendment to this Clause in page 32, line 6, at end, insert:
 (6) Any question of law arising in connection with the determination of any such appeal may if the Commissioner thinks fit, be referred for decision to the High Court, and any person aggrieved by the decision of the Commissioner or any such question of law which is not so referred may appeal from that decision to the High Court.
(7)Provision shall be made by rules of court for regulating references and appeals to the High Court under this section; and these rules shall provide for limiting the time within which appeals may be brought.
(8)As much of subsection (1) of section sixty-three of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925, as requires an appeal from any person to the High Court to be heard and determined by a divisional court shall not apply to appeals under this section."

Mr. Speaker: No. I have not selected this one.

CLAUSE 51.—(Procedure, evidence, etc.)

Mr. Lindgren: 1 beg to move, in page 34, line 45, at end, insert:
 (3) Regulations under subsection (1) of this section prescribing the procedure to be followed in cases before a local appeal tribunal or the Commissioner shall provide that any hearing shall be in public except in so far as the tribunal or Commissioner for special reasons otherwise directs.
During the Second Reading Debate, and also in Committee, the opinion was expressed that it would be desirable to enable the hearings of the tribunals to be in public, and not in private. This Amendment provides that opportunity.

Mr. Peake: This Amendment is very satisfactory to those of us who have asked throughout these discussions that the local appeal tribunals should sit in public unless particular circumstances, such as the condition of the injured man, make it desirable that a certain part or possibly the whole of the evidence given should be taken in camera. We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for moving this Amendment.

Mr. S. O. Davies (Merthyr): May I ask whether it is contemplated that where the injured workman, or his dependants or

relatives, would prefer to have the case considered in private, provision is to be made accordingly? It is conceivable that whereas the commissioner may not know the facts associated with, or in the background of, a case, there may be instances where the injured workman or his relatives would prefer certain facts or features not to be disclosed. In a case of that kind does the Minister contemplate such a provision as I have suggested?

Mr. Lindgren: The commissioner or chairman of the tribunal would receive representations from those having a case to be heard and we are satisfied that the desire of the individual would be. respected. The decision rests with the chairman or the commissioner and on representations made to him from either side, the case would be heard in public or in private.

Dr. Morgan: Do I understand that special consideration will be given by the commissioner or the chairman of the local tribunal and that the discretion as to a public or private inquiry rests with him? If the Parliamentary Secretary tells us that this is so, then it is very acceptable.

Mr. Lindgren: We are given to understand that it is necessary, for the purpose of the Bill, to place the responsibility for the actual decision upon some person. We have, therefore, placed it upon the. chairman or the commissioner, but it will be the purpose of my right hon. Friend to issue such directions as will make it possible for representations to be made from either side, for the appeal to be heard in public or in private, and the case will be heard accordingly.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I take it that, normally, the hearing will be in public, but that if there are any special circumstances the parties maysubmit them to the chairman or the commissioner, who will decide judicially whether or not it should be in camera.

Mr. Lindgren: I should have thought that that was obvious from the wording. It says that unless the commissioner or the chairman decides otherwise in relation to the facts before him, it will be in public.

Mr. Solley: May I add my voice to that of the right hon. Gentleman on the Opposition Front Bench in


congratulating the Government on bringing forward this provision? I had the temerity, in a maiden speech, to criticise the Bill as it then stood for the absence of such a provision. I think the interests of the workman will often best be met by a public trial.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 52.— (Interim payments,arrears, and repayments.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 35, line 18, at end, insert:
 (2) Where by a decision on review or appeal a person entitled to death benefit is awarded
(a) a pension in lieu of a gratuity or allowance previously awarded; or
(b) a gratuity in lieu of a pension or allowance previously awarded; or
(c) an allowance in lieu of a pension or gratuity previously awarded;
the decision on the review or appeal shall, subject to and in accordance with regulations, direct that any payments already made on account of the benefit originally awarded shall be treated as having been made on account of the benefit awarded by the decision on review or appeal.
This Amendment arises from a point made by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), during one of his speeches yesterday, that a new provision in relation to death benefit is introduced into this Bill, that of gratuities to parents and dependent relatives. This new provision is included in this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 35, line 22, leave out "Subsection (4) of."

In line 31, at end, insert:
 and is not directed to be treated as paid on account of the benefit awarded by the decision on review or appeal.

In line 40, leave out from "rate," to end of line 41.— [Mr. Lindgren.]

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 36, line 5, at end, insert:
 except in so far as it has in pursuance of the decision on appeal been repaid or treated as paid on account of the benefit awarded by that decision.
This, again, is a drafting Amendment, enabling a payment already made to be taken into account in any subsequent payment that might be made, arising out of a successful appeal against a previous decision.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 56— (Special provisions as to certain respiratory diseases.)

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 40, line 10, leave out "three," and insert "six."
In the Committee stage my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) moved an Amendment to raise the point that, by a provision in the existing Act, a man can be suspended from his employment in a coalmine by a medical board, which holds the view that, although he is not at that stage disabled by disease, he is certain to become so if he remains at work, and perhaps suffer very serious consequences. It is very desirable, in fact essential, that everything shall be done to prevent men staying in the mines after the onset of pneumoconiosis or silicosis. The original provision was that when they were brought out, there was a tiding over allowance for 13 weeks. The matter was represented to me very strongly by the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring, and I agreed—the more readily because it so happens that my constituency is, tragically enough, the worst afflicted in the country by this dread disease—that it was desirable, if the scheme was to work, that men brought out must be given a sufficient interval of time to adjust themselves to new circumstances and to be trained for a new job. I think even six months is a short enough period, but I am sure the decision to increase the period will commend itself to the House. If we are to work this provision at all, let us make it of such a character that it will operate and will be to the advantage of the men concerned.

4. p.m

Mr. Blyton: As one who took part in the discussions in Standing Committee on this point, may I, for our side, thank the Minister for the extent to which he has gone to meet what is a very serious problem and one which, in my opinion, will be accelerated when the mines have been mechanised? The six months' compensation will give a man a longer period in which to find a job to suit him instead of having to work in the pit and then, some day, find him a full rate compensation case for the rest of his life as a result of this terrible disease. It should be noted that the intention of the Clause is to try to get men to come out


of the pits in the early stages of silicosis and pneumoconiosis. In my opinion, if the men are examined in the pits, that will mean that the numbers will be far in excess of what they are now and, with the shortage of man-power, will make the position in the pits more difficult. But I believe it is far better to bring men out in the early stages of this disease, so that they can enjoy a longer life, rather than to keep them in the pit and have the disease creeping on them so rapidly that they go to a very early grave. Therefore, on behalf of Members on our side of the House, I thank the Minister very much for the extent to which he has gone in making it six months instead of three.

Dr. Barnett Stross: From the point of view of those who are interested in this subject, whether it is a case of miners or, as occurs so often in my constituency, of potters who are affected by silicosis, we are very happy indeed to have an extension from three months to six. I am sure the Minister will agree, however, that if we wait until the first stage of silicosis is well established, and if we give only three or six months' entitlement, then we are not doing very much. The only remedy that would really count would be if the Minister would, through his Department, see to it that the periodical medical examinations are frequent enough and thorough enough to enable us to withdraw men at a very early stage, not when the first of the three stages is already well established. I remember that in 1928 I had to give a counsel of despair to the pottery workers in my area and say to them, "As to those of our members who already have silicosis in such an advanced state that we know their lives are doomed, that their expectation of life is very short, let us not press to pull them out of the industry in order to obtain "—as was then the case—"30s. a week for them to live on. Let them, if they still can walk, or even be dragged, go to their work, for they will not have their lives shortened appreciably, at any rate not by more than a week or two." Today, however, we are dealing with a very different situation. We are very much more conscious of this disease and we know that the true remedy is to prevent rather than to cure. That being the case, whilst I very warmly welcome this extra benefit, I beg the Minister—and I am sure I shall not do so in vain

—to see that the medical inspections are thorough and frequent, and that the men come out in what the South Africans used to call the ante-primary stage.

Mr. David Eccles: 1 also would like to thank the Minister for making this change, and to add to what the last speaker has said. I hope the extra three months will be used for additional medical examination. In my constituency, we have a bacon factory to which a number of men suffering from silicosis have been directed in the last 18 months. More than half of them have been quite useless, because they have arrived in too advanced a stage of the disease, and the general practitioner in this little town of Calne in Wiltshire said to me, "You must stop" this. These men have come here too late." I hope that this provision will prevent a recurrence of that sort of thing.

Mr. Peake: There seems to be some confusion as to what this Amendment, in fact, does and what the Subsection does which the Amendment affects. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, before we part with it, make the position clear beyond all doubt. I only hope that my remarks will not add to the evident confusion on this matter, because it is a somewhat complex subject and one with which I have not had anything to do for some little time past. However, my recollection is that these payments were given under the Workmen's Compensation Acts as compensation for the hardship which a man suffered by being suspended from work at the pit, or wherever it might be, although he was able-bodied and capable of work. As the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr Blyton) said, and it is my recollection also, payments under the Workmen's Compensation Acts were given in addition to unemployment benefit and, therefore, the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) who spoke of the man only getting 30s. a week is, I think, mistaken because there are the double payments under this scheme, or under the Workmen's Compensation Act plus the unemployment benefit.

Dr. B. Stross: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman but may I say that I was speaking of 1928 when there was no scheme such as this?

Mr. Tom Smith: When the Act was not in operation.

Mr. Ewart: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling us that payment under the Workmen's Compensation Act on a partial basis is made to a sufferer from silicosis pending light employment in a suitable industry, or is he telling us that additional payments of workmen's compensation are made whilst the man is in receipt of unemployment benefit?

Mr. Peake: That is exactly the point on which I was going to ask the Minister to make the position quite clear. I accept what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hanley said, that he was speaking of 1928 before this type of payment was introduced. As I understand it, these payments were for a maximum period not exceeding three months, as it stood in the Bill, and now they are not to exceed six months. I assume they will continue only so long under -this scheme, as they did under the Workmen's Compensation Acts, as the man is out of a job; that is to say, an able-bodied man who is suspended on account of pneumoconiosis, will receive both the payment under this Bill, and the payment under the National Insurance Bill of 26s. a week, at any rate in respect of himself—I take it there will be no duplication of the family allowances— on top of benefits provided by this Bill for a period which will not exceed six months, but will, in nearly every case, be substantially less, because both payments will cease as soon as he takes alternative employment. I hope I have made the position clear, and that being the case, the Amendment is not of very much consequence, because I hope that under conditions of full employment it will not be necessary for anybody to wait more than three months before obtaining an alternative job.

Dr. Morgan: I wish to make a comment on this question from the medical aspect. I remember when doing research work in Cumberland in respect of silicosis, which was really pneumoconiosis, there was no limitation of time either for three months or six months. The men should be given their monetary payment by statute until such time as, by rehabilitation or the finding of another job they are perfectly fit to go back to work. When the medical evidence is sufficient to confirm suspension of the man, it means to me that the man has pneumoconiosis. Others may disagree, and many doctors say that a man has not got pneumoconiosis

at that stage, but I have examined many patients with all forms of the disease from asbestosis to silicosis and byssinosis and many forms and degrees of pneumoconiosis downwards. A man who is regarded as fit for suspension, should receive a statutory payment until he is rehabilitated to the extent of finding another job at which he can work. This is a very good proposal, and I add my congratulations to the Minister who is most humane and is keen to do the work. But I hope he will bear in mind that finding the man another job and rehabilitating him, is much more important, than any extension of time given by the statute.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I know a little about this on account of the unfortunate experience of miners in Fife—probably not so serious in its effects as elsewhere, but which had unfortunate cases, and I have had from time to time to deal with them. Anything that can be done to assist to rehabilitate men troubled with these dread diseases so that they can move to other employment out of the mines is to be welcomed. But why six months? Why not five months, why not nine months? I seek some indication of the statistics behind this decision, because those statistics would be of interest to the House and to the whole mining industry. During the war the rehabilitation service for the miners was developed enormously. What is the experience of the Minister in this matter of taking men away from the mines quickly after they develop the disease? How long does it, take before the man is made fit for another job? We would like some information to show why the Minister has chosen six months rather than some other period.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. Tom Smith: Those who can recall the discussions we had in 1922 when the subject of pneumoconiosis was before the House, will remember one or two difficulties that had to be met. For example, after the Medical Research Council had made its report, future cases which were certified received compensation in a different way and we were faced by the fact that there were many cases with no entitlement to compensation. We had to institute a benefit scheme. There has been the most thorough examination of men working in coalmines in the past two or three years, indeed I think if


there is one tribute which should be paid to the Ministry of Fuel and Power it is a tribute to the way in which they developed the examination system. Last year the figures were terrific. If a man working in the pit was examined and found to have a tendency to pneumoconiosis it was suggested to him that it would be better if he left the pit and did other work or rested. Then the point arose of what kind of payment should be made as an experiment, and three months was decided upon. Experience has shown, particularly in the South Wales coalfield, that three months is not quite sufficient and in the Standing Committee we asked for reconsideration of this point and as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) says, six months, being better than three, is a good compromise.
But this question of pneumoconiosis is much more serious and tragic than the mere payment of six months' compensation. No medicine has been found for the disease, but while one cannot save the man, one can prolong his life and much is being done in that direction. I do not think any constituency in Britain has a more tragic record than that represented by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of National Insurance. But it has been found that pneumoconiosis is not limited to the anthracite industry; it has been found in steam coal districts and other parts of the country, and it has been found in my constituency. This is a subject in which there has to be the most close research. Everything which can be done should be done to prevent the disease and, in addition, we have to see that we prolong the life of these men as much as we can and the six months period is a help in early cases.

Mr. James Griffiths: I am so tragically familiar with this matter that I am afraid I speak as if it were familiar to everyone in the House. This is a very important matter and I should hate to think that a wrong impression went out to the public and particularly to those men in the coalfield, if they misconstrued any remarks which I or other hon. Members have made. Under the existing scheme, there is provision by which men can be certified as disabled by pneumoconiosis and, if the Board is satisfied that they are so disabled, they are entitled to disablement payment, and would receive payment

under this scheme. They can be certified as partially disabled, or totally disabled. What we discovered was that men were seen by their own doctor or went to the medical board and the medical board refused a certificate because they not merely had to find that a man was suffering from pneumoconiosis, but had to be satisfied that he was disabled to some extent. If the disease was not at the disabling stage no certificate would be given and the men would go back to the pit and, in another six months, come back to the board. For 20 years I have seen this happening; the man having been refused a certificate, going back to the pit and then, in six months, coming back partially disabled, or wholly disabled.
The employers, the coalowners, and the National Union of Mineworkers discussed the matter and there was agreement that it was desirable to provide for the case where a medical board examined a man and was satisfied that at that time he was not disabled to such an extent as to enable him to be certified, but that if he stayed long enough in the industry he soon would be. In other words, the man should be prevented from going back to the pit, and if we were satisfied that he would become disabled either partially or otherwise, the original provision was to give him "a tiding over" allowance for 13 weeks, the idea being to enable him to find a new life and to fit himself for a new job. Because of the representations that were made to us, we have now extended that period to six months, and we hope that this period will be sufficient to enable a man to train himself for a new life and a new job. It is perfectly clear that we shall have to judge the matter by experience, and if we find that even this six months is not sufficient then the question becomes one of much higher importance. In this connection I must mention the name of the hon. Member for Hanley (Dr. Stross) who has given a lifetime of service to this work, and to whom all of us are indebted for the assistance he has given in this connection. I agree that all we are doing is dependent upon a completely new and successful health service. There must be periodical examination of the men all the time. That will have to be done as soon as possible, but it cannot be done now.
It is here that a very important problem is raised. Generally speaking, these men who are suspended are told


that they must not go back to the pit, because, if they do, they will soon be partially disabled. Getting these men into a new occupation means this, that I as the Minister, speaking for the Government, accept immediately that in these particular cases we should not at once train these men and then transfer them away from their homes. The Government do recognise that they have a special obligation to provide employment for these men near their homes. Already the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Fuel and Power, assisted by a working party presided over by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) have done splendid work in my own area in this direction. I, therefore, want to make it quite clear that the intention of this particular Amendment is to save these men's lives while there is yet time, and to enable us, by the provision made in the Bill, to have examinations at six-monthly periods, during which we hope the men can adjust themselves to a new state of society, and do what they can to train themselves for a new job.

Dr. Morgan: I want to be perfectly clear about this Amendment to the Clause. The Minister has referred to the men coming under certain schemes where they are certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis. Supposing a man is certified as suffering from pneumoconiosis by a specialist of standing, but not by a member of the Board, will that man then come under this scheme, with regard to the provisions for suspension. May I give the Minister an example? Pneumoconiosis in the foundry industry is not accepted, as such, at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the hon. Member has apparently embarked on a second speech.

Dr. Morgan: I was only trying to elaborate my point but of course, Sir, I bow to your Ruling.

Mr. Clement Davies: Arising out of the speech which has just been made by the Minister, and his references to what has been done by the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Fuel and Power, may I say that while appreciating to the full what is being done in coalmining, I hope that he will also pay particular attention to the difficulties which exist in the area in which

I live, where there is pneumoconiosis and silicosis in the slate quarrying areas.

Dr. Morgan: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, may I make my point, with regard to this matter of certification, because it is very important, particularly to a man who is suffering from pneumoconiosis through the dust caused in foundries. This has not been accepted by the Government, on the ground that they have not yet sufficient evidence. It is my opinion that there is plenty of evidence but the Government have not yet come to the conclusion that it would be accepted under this scheme. What I would like to know is, if there is sufficient valid and authoritative medical evidence produced in a case of pneumoconiosis of this description to show that the man should be suspended from his industry, will that man come under the Clause with regard to the payment of benefits for six months.

Mr. James Griffiths: I would indeed hesitate to give authority to suspend a man from his occupation to anybody except the board, which has power to do this and to which the power is granted by this Parliament. If we were to allow the power of suspension of men to be in the hands of an unauthorised person, we should indeed be getting into difficulties and I am afraid I cannot accept it at all. The power must lay where it now does. With regard to the point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) I am very much aware of the difficulties in the industry to which he has referred and will give the matter all the attention I possibly can.

Mr. Harry Wallace: Will it be possible for a man whose certification has been rejected by the board to apply to have his case considered again, so that he can be recertified in order to come within the provisions of the Clause?

Mr. Griffiths: If the Board has rejected the case, there is provision, within the limit of five years, for a man again to ask the Board for an examination. If on a second or subsequent examination, they find that the man has reached the stage where he is either partially or completely disabled they can issue a certificate.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 6i— (Inspectors.)

Mr. Clement Davies (Mongomery): I beg to move, in page 43, line 37, leave out paragraph (c).
We all recognise that this Measure has to be carried out in the most efficient form, but I would suggest to the Minister that the inspector is vested with sufficient authority to do all that is necessary by paragraphs (a) and (b), and that paragraph (c) is unnecessary. I would go further than that and say that it gives power to the inspector that has not, so far as I am aware, ever been given before to anybody in this country. Let us see what it says:
 to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an insured person or employed by the employer of any insured person, and to require every such person to be so examined and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined.
I know the word "Gestapo" is thrown about a little too freely, but really, these are terrifying powers to put in the hands of an inspector. He may be alone with the person he is examining, and then there would be the word of the inspector against the word of the person, with the authority behind the inspector of the criminal law, which he can, if he wishes, put into motion.
No such power as this is given even to the High Court Bench. If they wish to examine anybody they must examine that person in public. No such power is given to a policeman. He cannot compel anybody to sign a declaration saying this is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. This goes further than anything of which I am aware, although there might be something in the past of which I am entirely ignorant. But this Clause does invest the inspector with far more powers than I think should be given him. Then there is the position where, if the person in any way misleads the inspector, he again becomes liable to the criminal law. In ordinary matters, even in crime, the policeman has to take great care that he cautions the witness before he begins to interrogate him, and has to warn him—and the courts are most particular about this—that anything that he

says may be taken down m evidence and used against him.
4.30 p.m.
Here are inspectors—and it will be essential to have a great number of them to carry out the duties laid down in the Measure—who can examine anyone and then put a document in front of them and say, "Sign this." If a person says "I will not "sign this" provision provides something new. People can be compelled to sign a particular document which is put in front of them. I would not have raised so much objection to a general examination being included in this Clause if the Minister had not all the powers he wanted under paragraphs (a) and (b). He has power under (a)
 to enter at all reasonable times any premises or place liable to inspection under this section; 
Therefore he has power to enter the premises, and it will be noticed with regard to the entrance that the terms are that he is only supposed to enter "at a reasonable time." When it comes to examining these persons the inspector can do that at any time he likes, reasonable or unreasonable. Then, if one refers to paragraph (b), it will be seen that he is empowered
 to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary for ascertaining whether the provisions of this Act are being and have been complied with in any such premises or place…
That covers him pretty nearly. The paragraph continues:
 or for investigating the circumstances in which any injury or disease which has given or may give rise to a claim for benefit was or may have been received or contracted ".
What wider powers does the Minister want to give an inspector? Why then give certain extra powers with which an inspector can confront some poor person, and say under the powers conferred by paragraph (c),"Come with me; you have to be here alone with me and I shall put these questions. If you do not, I will report you to my authority, and under the next Subsection you will be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding£10 in the case of a first offence and not exceeding£50 in the case of a second or subsequent offence." He can hold that over the head of almost any person, because these words say:
… every person whom he finds in any such premises or place…


As has been asked in the Committee as to what might take place with regard to an accident, is everyone to be kept there? It is said that no one would act in such an unreasonable way, but the inspector will really be more or less the judge of his own case as to what he thinks the right thing to do. I beg the Minister to withdraw this paragraph and be content with the full powers he has already under paragraphs (a) and (b)

The following Amendments stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 43, line 39, leave out from. "person," to "whom," in line 40.

In line 41, leave out from "be "to" and "in line 42, and insert:
 in possession of any information which may assist him in investigating the circumstances in which any injury or disease which has given or may give rise to a claim for benefit, was or may have been received or contracted." [Mr. Peake.]

In page 44, line 16, leave out paragraphs (6) and (c).— [Mr. C. Davies.]

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think it will be for the convenience of the House if all the Amendments to this Clause are taken together. May I take it that the House agrees?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Lieut. - Colonel Byers: I beg to second the Amendment.
We went into the whole question of this Clause very carefully on the Committee stage. The Government gave the impression at that time, if my recollection is right, that this was the sort of thing that could be laughed off, that they did not intend to use these powers, that the powers were not as wide as they appeared to be—in other words, the usual arguments. I suggest to the Minister with all respect that there is a good deal of feeling about any Government taking such exceptionally wide powers as are conferred on inspectors in this Clause. They are wide powers, and I hope that the Minister will appreciate and admit that. I cannot understand, and I would like the Minister to give an explanation, why the inspectors under a Bill of this nature require greater powers than the police possess.. It seems a remarkable thing that in the case of industrial injury

it should be sought to arm the inspectors with greater powers than we are prepared to give to the police. Does this mean that we are prepared to give the police these powers in the near future? If so, then we are denying some of the elementary principles of British justice. If we are not seeking to do that, why should these powers be given to these specially favoured people, the industrial accident inspectors?
This Parliament has a big job to do in the future in safeguarding the liberties of the subject. I believe that will be one of our main tasks; I do not mean just because we have a Socialist Government in power, but because, having entered upon a planned economy, there will naturally be a desire on the part of the Executive to have things tidy, to have things made easier for their inspectors as against the individuals in the State. It is the task of Members on all sides of the House to resist these attempts to encroach upon the liberties of the subject. I would ask for one specific answer: Why should these inspectors of accidents require greater powers than we are at present willing to concede to the police?

Major Boyd-Carpenter: It is reassuring to those of us who sit on these benches to see hon. Members below the Gangway on this side at long last coming forward in defence of the liberty of the subject. I trust I shall not be indiscreet if I express the hope that their loyalty to that most important cause will flame steadily and not merely be an intermittent flicker. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) has pointed out, the powers taken, or proposed to be taken, under this Subsection are enormous, and the House is surely entitled to some explanation from the Government of the necessity which demands that inspectors under this Bill shall be given powers so wide, and, I hope, so exceptional. If it were some question concerned with the military security of the State I am certain there would be the greatest criticism, certainly from hon. Members opposite, about giving to any inspecting authorities such tremendous powers as are proposed to be given here. What necessity is there?
I hope the House will be told what danger is anticipated. What reason is there for giving these inspectors these tre-


mendously wide powers, which go further than the right to interrogate those whom there is reasonable cause to believe know something about the matter? Further, they can be compelled to sign a statement. Mere physical presence on the premises is sufficient to render a person liable to be held up and compelled to sign a statement. The House will appreciate that the paragraph reads,
… every person whom he finds in any such premises or place, or whom he has reasonable cause…
etc. There is, therefore, if I understand it correctly, a liability on any person who is physically on the premises concerned, with nothing else whatever to connect him with the cause of the trouble, to await the attention of the inspector. As has been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member, this is a matter of the criminal law, since under a subsequent Subsection a failure to comply with the instructions of these inspectors, however unreasonable, constitutes a criminal offence for which the man concerned can be brought before a court and fined.
I will say again that this House is entitled to an explanation of the reasons for these enormous powers. It would almost seem as if hon. Members opposite anticipate great trouble in the working of this Bill, since they think it necessary to support it with powers wider, in some respects, than those which the Home Office had during the war to maintain internal security. I should be grateful if the learned Solicitor-General could give the House some guidance as to how these powers compare with the powers of inspectors under the Factory Acts. The point was raised in the Standing Committee and, therefore, even if the learned Solicitor-General would have been taken by surprise by a reference to another Act at this stage—and I am sure he would not—he has been put on inquiry. I feel that it might be illuminating to see whether the inspectors under this Bill, whose functions are in some degree analogous to those of inspectors under the Factory Acts, are to be armed with wider powers.
It should not be thought that any hon. Member who raises the question of these powers is in any degree concerned to impede the legitimate working of inspectors under this Bill. We recognise that inspectors are necessary, we recognise that they will have important and valuable work to do. But there is surely an onus

upon those who ask for extraordinary powers to demonstrate the extraordinary reasons which justify them. If I may express one further hope, I trust we may be spared the explanation which we have been given on this and on similar points in the Standing Committee, that it is not intended to exercise the powers. If I may repeat what has become an almost monotonous assertion from this side of the House, an undertaking by a Minister not to use the powers he is seeking is not an argument for giving him those powers.

Major Niall Macpherson: In his Second Reading speech on the National Insurance Bill, the right hon. Gentleman looked forward to the time when the administration of social services would be regarded by all people as a friendly one. There is a natural disinclination to regard any Government Department, especially one with sanctions behind it, as friendly, but the right hon. Gentleman looked forward to the time when people would treat the central social services administration as a citizens' advice bureau. How, if there is such a Clause as this in a Bill dealing with the administration of social services, is it possible to expect citizens to regard the administration of such services as friendly? Surely, when an inspector goes to a house he should' be regarded as a friend, but if he goes armed with ' powers which will result in a fine of£10 the first time and£50 the second time being imposed on anybody who refuses to answer a question, how on earth is he expected to get satisfactory answers? How will he get co-operation? I fully agree with the points put by other hon. Members on this side of the House in regard to the protection of the rights and freedom of the citizen, and I would urge that, in order to get the fullest co-operation in the working of this Bill, the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw this Clause.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. McKie: I join with my hon. Friend above the Gangway in congratulating the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) on having done the House the excellent service of moving to omit this paragraph (c) from Clause 61 of the Bill. Like my hon. and gallant Friend above the Gangway, it is for once in a while a great pleasure to me to agree with my hon. and learned


Friend the Member for Montgomery, whom I have known so long. Whenever he speaks, whether I agree or not with the substance of his remarks, it is always a great pleasure for me to hear him. For once in a while, we are this afternoon in complete agreement and,, if I may say so without offence, this afternoon I think he was following truly on the lines of Mr. Gladstone. I cannot think with what horror the celebrated Liberal leader of the 19th century would have regarded this House being asked by the Government to confer such powers upon inspectors as we are asked to agree to in the Clause as it is at present drafted.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery—and he is supported by my hon. and gallant Friend above the Gangway—is well versed in the law. I am only a layman, and I have no reason to question the accuracy of his statement nor have I any reason to suppose that the Solicitor-General is ambitious to blow to smithereens what the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said. He said that under this Clause, as it is now drafted, the inspectors have conferred upon them powers such as even the High Court Bench itself does not possess. He is supported by his colleague the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset (Lieut.-Colonel Byers). I was very interested in what the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset said in speaking of this Clause. He took a wide sweep, and spoke of what this Parliament would be expected to do, and of the great vigilance that it would have to exercise continually over the Socialist Executive. I see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne does not accept that.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: All I wanted to say was that it is the duty of every Member of Parliament who is not in the Executive to watch the actions of the Executive.

Mr. McKie: We are all agreed on that. Far be it from me to say that that is not the duty of any and every hon. Member, in whatever part of the House he or she may sit.

Mr. Silverman: I would be interested if the hon. Member could quote any occasion in the many years he has been in the House, when he has performed for any Conservative Executive the service he

has performed for the Socialist Executive.

Mr. McKie: The Conservative or National Executives did not give me the same cause. But I have been led away. I have not yet been able to say what I was going to say about the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Dorset. I was very glad to hear him say what he did, because he seemed to share the apprehension of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery, who alluded to the famous Gestapo speech of the Leader of the Opposition and said that we must be continually on our guard about granting such powers as are proposed under this paragraph to this—and this will please the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne—or to any other Administration. I hope that he will see that his actions and his votes in this House are more consistent in future with the advice he has just given.
This is a very serious matter. There is no question about that. I hope that the Solicitor-General will have something to say about this, and will be able to explain why the Government of which he is such a distinguished Member and ornament, are asking for these exceptionally wide powers. Why, as the hon. and learned Gentleman for Montgomery asked, are they not satisfied, as they should be, with paragraphs (a) and (b)? Why are they going further and granting powers of this character to these inspectors? I remember speeches which were delivered by supporters of the Government when they were in opposition. I imagine that they should be very apprehensive about the kind of thing that these inspectors will do, under the powers which are envisaged in the Clause. I remember in the years gone by the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) and the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan), now Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, speaking in very strong terms and tones about just this kind of thing. I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to tell us whether this kind of power, or anything approaching it, has been included in Factories Acts which this House from time to time, and generally under Conservative administrations, has placed on the Statute Book. I feel sure that when the Solicitor-General replies, he will do so in the negative. I hope he will not simply reply very fully on the points that


have been raised, but will also be able to say that no power such as this has ever been granted under various Factories Acts. I hope he will go further still, will accede to the eloquent plea of the mover of the Amendment and will delete the paragraph altogether. Failing that, I sincerely hope that the House will go to a Division on the Amendment.

Mr. Mack (Newcastle-under-Lyne): I remember the hon. Member who has just spoken speaking only last week, when he made the greatest congratulatory address to which I have ever listened. I think that 649 constituencies in this country are to be congratulated that he is not their Member of Parliament. 'I would venture to ask the Solicitor-General for enlightenment on one or two points in the Measure which seem capable of misunderstanding. I have no objection to an inspector going into premises, because the function of an inspector is to inspect. If we could have a type of inspector who would examine the capacity of aspirants to political honours among hon. Members of this House, the result might be a better standard in our politics. I know that the word "inspector" has been the subject of considerable abuse and that we imagine that a person who enters into a building for the purpose of ascertaining the true state of health of its workers may constitute himself a kind of ruthless individual, whose purpose it is to make the worker as uncomfortable as possible. Paragraph (c) states that his duty is
 to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person, as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place.
The inspector may find a person on the premises who does not work there. I know the paragraph is qualified by the subsequent phrase:
or whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be or to have been an insured person or employed by the employer of any insured person.
To that extent the inspector may have some justification, if, in his assiduity for duty, he says to such a person, "I consider that you require inspection or examination. Therefore I am going to do my work."
Suppose the inspector finds in the place another person who may not even be a worker in that factory but may be there for some obscure reason. Has the inspector a right to say, "I am going

to examine you whether you like it or not" to that person? If the person refuses, what will be the situation? The paragraph says:
 and to require every such person to be so examined and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined.
I can imagine the possibility of a weak-minded person being impressed by the importance of a man in the uniform of this inspectorate calling to see him, and asking him to sign a declaration that he had been properly examined and that the account of the examination was truly stated, when it might not be the truth at all. Those are two points which seem somewhat obscure. I know the Solicitor-General is always anxious to make obscurities clear, and I hope he will be able to make those points clear to us.

The Solicitor-General: This point was fully discussed in Committee. I was interested to notice the name of the mover of the Amendment, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies). He attacked the Clause with a wealth of eloquence, and said that he had not been able to discover that such powers had ever been given in such ample measure to any inspectors before. On that ground, he regarded it as deplorable that the Socialist Government should introduce them in this Year of Grace, 1946. I am not sure how much research he expended in trying to discover whether the powers were new or not. In point of fact, the Clause about which he complained so bitterly was copied almost word for word from the equivalent Section of the National Insurance Act, 1911. It is a case of plagiarism. I think we should owe him an apology rather than accept his reproaches. The running was taken up by the hon. and gallant Member for Kingston-on-Thames (Major Boyd-Car-penter). He, belonging to a different party, put his point of view about these powers. He will no doubt be interested to know that the Conservative Government were guilty of the same fault as the Socialist Government. They copied the words fox the purposes of their Measures. I feel that the hon. and gallant Member will join us in the apology we extend on account of our plagiaristic habits when he learns that these words were in the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935, Section 65; the National Insurance Act, 1936 Section 165; and the Factory Act,Section 123.
5.0 p.m.
The powers found their origin in a rather different but not wholly dissimilar form in the Factory and Workshop Act, 1878. From that they were transferred again somewhat altered, to Section 119 of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1901. When we get to 1911, these powers are very much in the same form as they exist today. They existed without any complaint, so far as I know, and indeed they have been so innocuous that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Montgomery was in blissful ignorance of their existence. I do not know that the House would desire me to research further into the history of this. There is a good deal more I might say. I hope I might be accepted as having established that there is nothing very novel about these powers and really the hon. and learned Gentleman was rather rediscovering America.
The fact is, of course, that if the Government are entrusted with the duty of administering a complicated Social Insurance Act such as the one the House is considering, they must be given adequate powers so to do.It was said, "Well, why can't you send a policeman to do this?" The answer is that this is not the sort of task with which a policeman can conveniently concern himself. It is a specialised form of inquiry which, if it is exercised, necessitates specific powers. That has been found over several decades in this country in relation to previous Insurance Acts. The powers have not been abused and nobody has complained of them until the hon. and learned Gentleman did in Committee, and he has done exactly the same today.

Mr. Clement Davies: I certainly did not suggest that these powers should be given to the police. I never said anything of the kind. I fully agree the inspector has got to be invested with powers, but what. I am suggesting is that sufficient powers were already given under paragraph (b) to do all that was necessary.

The Solicitor-General: That again is a novel view. It was not the view taken in most cases, at any rate, by those hon. and learned Gentlemen who framed the earlier Acts to which I have referred. The fact is that the mere circumstance that an inspector is vested with these powers does not mean that he will abuse them. Inspectors have not done that in the past; there is no reason why they should do so in

the future. If they do, the courts will be very vigilant, in dealing with any cases that are brought before them, to mark a sense of their displeasure at any excessive use by inspectors of their powers. The inspector has to investigate circumstances which are known only to those persons who, generally speaking, are concerned with the particular undertaking in which the workman was injured. He must be enabled to go upon the premises. He must be allowed a reasonable latitude and discretion in pursuing his inquiries, and if he finds people on the premises there is a reasonable presumption that they probably can tell him something about it.
In Committee, when the same subject was being debated, the point was put about a girl standing on a railway platform, the premises in question being a railway station. Obviously, no inspector in his senses seeing standing in a railway station a member of the public, whom he has not the slightest reason to believe can give him any information of use, is going to waste his time questioning that person. Inspectors do not do this for the benefit of their health; they do it in discharge of a duty because they want to find information which is useful for the purpose of the administration of this Act. It stands as a matter of common sense that, in the exercise of their discretion, and within the ambit of the powers with which they are entrusted, they will go to people on the premises, or people falling in the categories described in the paragraph, who may be able to help them, so that their inquiries will be profitable and not a sheer and absolute waste of time. If they start causing proceedings to be taken against people who on the face of it could not tell them, anything of interest or importance in relation to the question they are investigating, the courts will be very ready and vigilant and will make it perfectly clear in the penalties which they impose, and the remarks which they make from the bench, that they do not think it is a proper exercise by the inspector of his powers.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: Will the learned Solicitor-General answer a specific question which was put? Why do these inspectors require greater powers than those which the police have at present, apart from all this reactionary tradition which I am surprised to hear coming from that side of the House?

The Solicitor-General: I am sorry to hear the adjectives which the hon. and gallant Gentleman applies to his distinguished predecessors. The answer to the question is that the inspectors require these powers for the simple reason that they are entrusted with the duties and the police are not. It is not the business of the police to make inquiries for the purposes of this Bill. That is not a matter within the province of the police at all, but the inspectors, as I was trying to point out, are charged with the duty of conducting the inquiries which are necessary for the purpose of ascertaining what it is necessary to do in order to enable this Bill to be administered. For that reason they have to be vested with the powers to go on premises, to put questions to people who are there, to put questions to other people described, insured people and persons employed by an employer of insured persons, and so on. It is necessary that they should have these powers otherwise they cannot find out what it is necessary to find out. That is what was thought before by the reactionary predecessors of the present Government.
It is a question of how the powers are exercised. All this does is to invest the inspectors with powers. If we impose duties we must make available the facilities which enable those duties to be carried out. That is all these powers do. They have been exercised and I say, and I repeat because it is of the greatest importance, they have been exercised without any complaint at all. The Act has got to be administered. It has to be administered efficiently and with a minimum of red tape. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be only too ready to jump to their feet and point out if there is too much red tape. The benefits have to be paid where they are due and not where they are not due. There has been devised not merely a comprehensive system for trying these claims, but also this particular system for investigating and providing the necessary information has equally been devised as appropriate for the specific purpose and the specific duties.
There is nothing new about these powers. They have never been found in the past to be harmful, inconvenient, deleterious, or likely to encroach upon the liberty of the individual. There is not the slightest reason why they should so be found as administered by the present Government and perhaps also by future

Governments—if any. The point is a perfectly simple one which has already been amply discussed in Committee. I say with great respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment that his main point, at any rate, does not seem to carry the matter very much further and it was based an a falacious foundation. I ask the House to negative these Amendments.

Mr. Peake: I think it was suggested when this Amendment was called that it would be convenient to take the discussion at the same time not only on this Amendment but on the two which follow and which stand in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Chester (Mr. Nield), and Oxford (Mr. Quintin Hogg), and myself. So far nobody has said much about these Amendments, nor has the learned Solicitor-General in the speech which he has just made. I agree with the Solicitor-General that the Amendment moved from the Liberal Benches, in the face of precedents upon this matter, goes too far. I do not think we can resist some paragraph similar to that in the Factories Act and similar to paragraph (c) of Subsection (2) in the present Bill. I would ask the House to look at the Amendment, and at this paragraph which my hon. Friends propose. Paragraph (c) gives the inspector the power to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person as he thinks fit, with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he finds in any such premises or place—that is, any premises or place liable to inspection—or, as an alternative, every person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be, or to have been, an insured person.
That, in fact, of course, means the whole population, because I would draw the attention of hon. Members to the fact that a precisely similar provision appears in the main National Insurance Bill. The Subsection there is in exactly the same terms as that before the House to-day. As everybody knows, the whole population will be insured persons under the main National Insurance Bill, and, therefore, the powers in fact being given by paragraph (c) are to examine anybody. The inspector can examine, first, any person he finds on any premises liable to inspection or, alternatively, every person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be an insured person, and, since we


shall all be insured persons, we are all going to be liable to examination under paragraph (c), and we shall be called upon to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which we have been examined. I say that these words go too far. It will be impossible to show that the inspector has not got reasonable cause to believe everybody and anybody to be insured persons, because we all shall be.

Mr. S. Silverman: The only point is if he has reasonable cause to believe that the man is an insured person. But if he is not an insured person, and there is no reasonable grounds to believe that he is, a man may still be liable if he was ever employed by the employer of an insured person.

Mr. Peake: The hon. Member is quite right I think I have shown that nobody is, in fact, exempted from examination by the wording of this paragraph. What we, in our Amendment, propose would have this effect, and the paragraph, if amended as we desire, will read as follows:
 To examine every person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be in possession of any information which may assist him in investigating the circumstances in which any injury or disease which has given or may give rise to a claim for benefit was or could have been caused or contracted.
I suggest that those words are more appropriate than the words of the Subsection. They throw the onus upon the inspector to have reasonable cause to believe that any person, in respect of whom he exercises his powers of examination and interrogation under this paragraph, has some information which will be useful in the performance of his duties. That seems to me to be a reasonable limitation to place upon the inspector's powers.
5.15 p.m.
We heard a great deal of discussion in the House in days gone by about the effect of these words "having reasonable cause to believe," but I think the generally accepted view of them now is that they do, in the ultimate resort, give a power of challenge in the courts, and anybody refusing to give information which the responsible inspectors demand. under this paragraph could, in the last resort, challenge the inspector's claim to have "reasonable cause to believe "in

one of the courts of justice. I do not think that is an unreasonable thing to ask. I pointed out during the Committee stage that power to examine persons found on premises where any insured persons are employed, of course gave inspectors power to examine anybody. It might apply to a main line railway station, and that is one example of the powers here sought being too wide. These words, which give power to examine every person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be an insured person, are completely meaningless in view of the fact that the whole population of these islands is to be insured under the main National Insurance Bill..We find exactly the same paragraph coming up on the main National Insurance Bill and it will be as highly objectionable there, as it is in regard to the 17,000,000 persons under the Industrial Injuries Bill. In my view, these words have no meaning, because the whole population, men, women and children, are insured persons for the purposes of the main National Insurance Bill. I, therefore, suggest to the House that the limitations that we seek to introduce are sensible, and much more limited than my hon. Friend's rather unjustifiable desire to delete the paragraph altogether, and I ask the House to accept our Amendment.

Mr. S. O. Davies: I am sorry that the learned Solicitor-General has not entirely convinced me that this paragraph is absolutely necessary in this Bill, and I cannot readily accept the analogy which he drew between the Insurance Act of 1911 and the Bill now before the House. Differences of opinion on a much wider scale, I imagine, will arise under this Bill than ever arose under the National Health Insurance Act, and I am not convinced that this paragraph should be left in the Bill, because I profoundly dislike the first two lines and also the last two, with which 1 am more likely to quarrel than with any other part. There may be a situation in which there has been a very serious accident—let us assume, in a coalmine. The inspector gets there, and the first man to whom he speaks might be a person who is largely illiterate. The inspector has power to take that man aside and compel him to make a statement, and he can then compel him to sign it.
My first quarrel with that is that I do not think any Act of Parliament will


succeed that deprives any working man of the protection of his trade union. It is clearly absurd to expect that, in a serious situation in which the welfare and well-being of perhaps quite a number of people will be at stake, any particular trade union would permit an inspector, Act of Parliament or no Act of Parliament, to withdraw an important witness without any protection' or advice from his own trade union advisers, and take a statement from him that might damn the interest, and possibly unjustifiably so, of people who would otherwise have benefited. I cannot help looking at this from the point of view of an old trade unionist and trade union official. I would resist any person taking such a liberty with my organisation and with my members, whatever the consequences might be. Let that be perfectly clear. I am surprised that my life-long Friend the Minister has persuaded himself that this paragraph is necessary. In his constituency and mine there are still a considerable number of workers whose speaking and thinking language is not English, but Welsh. I can quite imagine an inspector going to the quarries in Blaenau Festiniog. There is nothing in this Bill guaranteeing that a Welsh-speaking inspector would interrogate this man or that. He may take aside a Welshman,' interrogate him, and take a statement from him in a language that is foreign to the Welshman. There are some friends of mine who I would not think of speaking English to.

Mr. Peake: Would the hon. Gentleman explain to the House how an Englishman who cannot speak Welsh, and a Welshman who cannot speak English, can have any exchanges at all?

Mr. Davies: I have seen many presumptuous Englishmen presuming to understand a monolingual Welshman, and that might explain the vast amount of misunderstanding in England with regard to Wales. But I really feel very deeply about this matter. We are all human beings. What assurance can I have that every one of the inspectors appointed may not be biased from wrong experience against a working man? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that there is some response from the other side. There is a possibility that some of the inspectors will have served the big insurance companies of this country for

many years, and I doubt whether that training is the best to help in seeing that justice is done under this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament. It is not enough for my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General to tell me that inspectors will not abuse these powers. I am quite prepared to accept that nine out of ten will not, but I have no guarantee as to the tenth I must ask my old colleague the Minister to think afresh over this paragraph. I cannot be persuaded that it is necessary, and I am certain there will be occasions when it cannot possibly work. I am far from being persuaded, from what I have heard this afternoon— that it is necessary. I am certain that if my right hon. Friend the Minister will reflect upon his experience, he will appreciate how jealously the trade unions of this country guard their rights and privileges in respect to any protection that can be given to any of their members in any circumstances.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I am glad that the opposition to this Subsection is no longer confined to the two parties opposite who, apparently, have supported this kind of thing in principle for over 50 years, but I was very sorry to see my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General use that as an argument for supporting this. If the legislation was bad, we have an admirable opportunity in this Parliament for putting it right. I think this Clause always went too far even in the case of the Acts of Parliament to which he has referred. But I would not base my own argument against this paragraph upon any analogy with any of the Acts he mentioned. In this Bill there is clearly a totally new situation. There is no parallel at all, and I would like to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to what I think are the relevant differences.
First, the employer has no interest under this Bill. He is not concerned to conceal anything; he does not pay, his insurance company does not pay and he has no longer any interest whatever in seeking to deprive the insured workman of his benefit. That is one of the great improvements this Bill makes. One of the other great improvements it makes is that there is no longer any powerful class in the community having an axe to grind, or having an interest in seeing that claims are paid as infrequently as possible and to as small a degree as possible. All that


has gone, so that any of the powers in this paragraph which appear to be directed against employers are entirely illusory. They are nothing more than a hangover from half a century of legislation with which this Bill has nothing whatever to do. So do not let us deceive ourselves that what we are doing here is giving ourselves the power to inquire about employers who have broken the Act.
In the last minute or two of his speech, the Solicitor-General conceded that when he said it was in the interest of the State to see that claims were not paid that were not due. Nobody objects to that. The first business of the State must be to protect the fund. He must have powers to do that. He has such powers in paragraphs (a) and (b). What he is being asked to do, and what he has failed to do, is to show why he needs these powers. He said they had always had such powers and that they would not be abused. I accept all that, but none of it is any reason for saying he ought to have them unless he needs them. It has been shown already by the right hon. Gentleman opposite that whereas in all the other Acts this power was a limited power, in that it only affected a limited class of person, this paragraph covers every member of the population. Anybody can be examined. There are no words of limitation of any kind. Every word of limitation is really a word of expansion. There is nobody in the country—or will not be very soon—about whom any court would have any doubt that an inspector has reasonable, cause to believe, either, that he was a person found on the premises inspected, or was an insured person, or had been at some time an insured person, or that he was an employee of the employer of an insured person, or that he had at some time been the employee of an employer of an insured person. All these people are expressly included in this paragraph, and it means that there is nobody, about whom it could reasonably be argued, that there was not reasonable ground to believe—the man does not have to prove it—that he came into one or other of these categories.
5.30 p.m.
The third relevant difference—and I think this is a conclusive difference—is that in this case the State will be acting

in its own financial interest. In all the other cases, it was keeping the ring That is a very important difference. It is one thing to give a Government-appointed inspector power to inquire into the breach of a factory regulation in the interests of the employees and of the community, but it is quite different to give him extraordinary powers of this kind in order to maintain forensically before the tribunal a defence to a claim. Just imagine what the insurance companies, under the old law, would have given for such a power as this. That is the parallel we have to draw—not the parallel of the State keeping the ring under the old law, but of the people who, under the old law, had to pay if the claim was proved. What would they not have given for the power to send into my office when I was handling a workman's claim an inspector who could say "I want to take a statement from the applicant, from all your witnesses and from yourself." That is the difference. Just consider what, under the old law, the party who was in the same position as the State will be in under this Measure—. that is to say, the party who had to find the money—would have given for the power to get a signed declaration, under a criminal penalty, of the circumstances leading to the claim. What kind of a tribunal is going to hear the evidence that it is sought to obtain in this way? It is not the county court any more. It is not a judicial tribunal with a right of appeal any more. It is a tribunal appointed by the Government, before which the applicant has no right ot be legally represented at all. It becomes a matter of some importance.
I am not trying to argue that this is a fundamental principle which goes to the roots of our society. It is nothing of the kind. It is really of small compass, but in that small compass it does raise matters of fundamental principle. We used in this country to pride ourselves that we had no administration law, and that we had not two sets of laws—one for the common citizens and another for other people. It was the basis of our law that everybody was answerable before the same courts according to the same law. We are necessarily losing it. It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to shake their heads, but they were the first to depart from it, and I do not blame them for it. Our society and our law have necessarily become progressively


complicated, and It was quite necessary to have an administration law of our own. But, for that very reason, it becomes very important that we should have a definite ascertainable body of administration law, just as we have a definite, ascertainable body of common law on which to appeal. I do not see, on any ground of principle, that the Government can take to themselves in circumstances of this kind a right to examine any member of the community, to take a statement from him, to make him sign it and do it all under a criminal sanction, and then to use the evidence obtained in that way under that criminal sanction before a tribunal where he is not represented and from which he has no right of appeal, in order to defeat the claims of the person who has been interrogated in that manner. That is what is being sought, and no case has been made out for it. A negative case has been made out that it was always there and that it has not been abused, but that is never a good argument and it ceases to be an argument at all in circumstances like this where the whole background against which the matter can be tested fundamentally changes. I would ask my hon. and learned Friend seriously to look at this matter again.

The Solicitor-General: I will endeavour—

Mr. C. Davies: Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I desire to draw your attention to the fact that the Solicitor-General has already addressed you on this matter. If the House accords this right to the Solicitor-General, I hope it will not refuse it to me or to any other hon. Member who desires to speak again.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the Solicitor-General asks the leave of the House to address it again, I am sure the House will accede to his request.

The Solicitor-General: I beg to ask the leave of the House to address it again on this Amendment. It is, in point of fact, another Amendment, and I am not sure that I do need to ask the leave of the House, because an Amendment has been moved which was subsequent to the one on which I spoke last. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) proposes to substitute words which depend upon the introduction of the words "reasonable cause to

believe," and so on. I submit that those words will not add anything because there is already a sufficient limitation upon the scope of the Clause by reason of words which are already within it. May I call the attention of the House to those words? In the introductory words to Subsection (2) one finds:
 "for the purposes of the execution of this Act.
Those words at once embody a limitation upon the scope of the inquiry upon which the inspector may embark. [Hon. Members: "No."] Certainly, they do. He cannot just interrogate people at will according to his own sweet whim. He must confine his interrogation to what is necessary for the purposes of the execution of the Act. The inspector is given powers for the purposes of the execution of this Act. One of those powers is to examine certain persons. He can examine those persons with respect to any matters under this Act. I agree that does not limit the category of people whom he is entitled to examine, but it does limit the scope of the examinations to which he is entitled to subject them. So 'there we start off with a limitation—

Mr. Peake: If I may interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman, it surely means that he cannot ask them who is going to win the 3.30, or the football match, and that he has to confine his interrogation to something to do with industrial injuries.

The Solicitor-General: That is a very substantial limitation. There would be a ground for complaint against these words if they simply meant that a person could subject people he has found on premises to a purely capricious inquiry. He has to ask them questions which are relevant to the matters in issue. Obviously, he will confine his inquiries to people who can help him on those points.
It is not just a roving inquiry, completely pointless and conditionless. On the contrary, he has a specific matter with regard to which he has to direct his inquiries, and he will naturally direct them to people who can deal with those matters and not to other people. Therefore, there is already in the paragraph as it stands a very considerable blinker upon his proceedings. He can only proceed for certain specific purposes.
I submit that as the Clause stands it is far more satisfactory than it would be


if the words which the right hon. Gentleman seeks to introduce were introduced. They are words of wide and unprecise meaning. They depend upon something which is difficult to ascertain and to limit. As the words stand, the inspector is clearly told that so long as he confines his interrogation to the purpose to which he is allowed to direct it in the terms of the Bill, then he can carry on with his inquiry. Naturally that involves the prerequisite that he will not waste his time in asking questions of people who cannot tell him anything about the matter. The Clause as it stands is far better than it would be if the ambiguous, wide and far-reaching words were introduced which the right hon. Gentleman proposes. At the moment it is clear what it means. He can carry out certain inquiries limited to certain objects, and that naturally involves that he will select from the category of persons who are described in the paragraph only those persons who can help him with those objects. That is how the Clause is worded at present.
There is another serious objection to introducing the Amendment. The Amendment is limited to inquiries with regard to the origin of the injury or disease The whole point of paragraph (c) is that the inspector is to be allowed to ask about things in addition to those with respect to any matters under this Bill; that is to say with respect to how the accident happened, payment of contribution, whether there is any ground on which the workman can be excused payment of contributions, the defacing of stamps, and so on. If the words sought to be introduced were introduced, there would be a plain conflict between the first three lines of the paragraph and those words. The first three lines would apparently give the inspector wider powers than he would be given if the right hon. Gentleman's words were introduced. That is the technical objection which I would raise to the Amendment. It would make nonsense of the Clause, which reads perfectly satisfactorily as it stands.
I would like to say one or two words to my hon. Friends who spoke from this side of the House. It seems to me they are under a complete misapprehension as to the object of the paragraph. It is not to do the workman out of his rights at

all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman) pointed out, the circumstances now are quite different from what they were before. Before, a workman, if he was lucky enough, would scrape up sufficient money for a solicitor and the solicitor would conduct inquiries for him. That is no longer the case. Now the State, using the inspectors, makes the workman's case for him; in the same way, if the workman is not entitled to benefit, the inspectors make the case for the State. It assists both sides. It is machinery provided by the State which makes inquiries which may be in favour of the workman or may be against him.
5.45 p.m.
It assists a workman who may find difficulty in dealing with certain matters as to which there may be doubt, because he will not have the necessary experience and so on. The State inspector comes along and makes those inquiries for him. In some cases it may be extremely difficult for the workman to do that, and he would be in a very difficult situation if he had not the aid of the inspector on on which to rely. One can well conceive the case where a workman has fallen out with his employer and where, without an inspector to go there and put questions, the workman would never get the evidence he requires to satisfy the insurance officer. In a case like that he would indeed be grateful for the help of the inspector who has the right under this Clause to put such questions as are relevant for the purposes of the Act. That is the sort of case in which the workman would be helped.
There are other circumstances in which there may be spurious cases put forward. One hopes they will be few, but it is right nevertheless that in a comprehensive scheme of State insurance such as this the State should have the right to protect itself against spurious claims. Imagine the case of a workman killed or seriously injured, so seriously injured that he cannot conduct his own inquiries, and cannot instruct a solicitor to do it on his behalf because he has not the money to do so. For some reason or other he may not be a member of a trade union. In such a case, when the evidence is not forthcoming which would establish his claim to the satisfaction of the insurance officer, or the local appeal tribunal if there was


an appeal from the decision of the insurance officer, it would be incumbent upon the inspector to procure that information by making the inquiries which he is empowered to make under this paragraph. Therefore, this is a necessary measure of succour which the workman requires, particularly the workman who has been injured, who is inexperienced, who is illiterate, who is not a member of a trade union and who has nobody to support his claim.
Conversely, where there is a spurious claim the inspector is equally under an obligation to procure the relevant information to show that that is so. More often than not, however, it will be in the interests of the workman to have his claim prepared for him, and the evidence procured for him by an experienced person armed with the necessary powers to procure that information than the reverse. That is particularly the case where the workman is illiterate, has nobody to stand up for him, and no trade union behind him. He cannot go and make complicated inquiries as to the amount of contributions that were paid, or ascertain whether he has a right to be excused contributions. Sometimes if there is a conspiracy against him, if his employer has got a grudge against him, the employer may say, "This workman was never employed on my pay list at all. This accident is not an accident which arises out of any employment." That is a case in which it will be incumbent upon the inspector to investigate, and he will have the right to go on to the premises and investigate.
I accept wholeheartedly what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne. This is not a case which is analogous to cases before this Bill. This is a new set of circumstances altogether, in which the particularly relevant feature is that the matter is taken out of the hands of contesting parties. You no longer have a workman fighting with an employer. You have the State providing assistance to the workman, and to itself, in proper cases, to establish a case to show that a claim ought not to succeed where there is no entitlement.

Mr. Bowles: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say that the inspector appearing before the tribunal would be representing both sides?

The Solicitor-General: Not representing. He would procure information which would be available to the tribunal. He would put questions which would be put down in documentary form, and that information would be available to the insurance officer, the local appeal tribunal and so on.

Mr. S. Silverman: Does that mean that once the inspector has got these signed statements, with a penalty of a £10 fine if a man does not sign them, the tribunal, will not need any oral evidence at all but judge on the statements taken? If it does not mean that, what does he want the statements for?

The Solicitor-General: Because before anybody is called as a witness you want some sort of proof of what he is going to say. You want to know who are the relevant witnesses. When the inspector goes on the premises he may see five people and say, "Who can tell me something about this accident?" The workman may have been stunned, or may be ill, or have lost his memory and he cannot tell how the accident occurred. The inspector can at least ask who is in a position to go before the insurance officer and say how the accident happened. The question whether the workman succeeds or not may depend entirely upon the endeavours of the inspector. It is for the protection of the workman in the same way as it is for the protection of the State.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: May I put this question? We have just heard the reasons that the hon. and learned Gentleman gave. I should like to ask him why the third Amendment in the group with which we are now dealing is not sufficient to cover those reasons. If it is, why should it be necessary to have this wider Clause?

The Solicitor-General: I have already dealt with that— [Hon. Members: "No."]—Maybe very inadequately, but I have given an answer such as I can. I have objected to the Amendment on the grounds that it is technically wrong because it makes nonsense of the Clause. I have put forward such arguments as I could to satisfy the House. It is not suitable as it stands. I have tried to explain it and to say what happens. That is how it would work. It would enable necessary information to be ob-


tained in cases where it probably otherwise would not be obtained, and to start investigations of claims where there was a right to compensation, and vice versa. That, I should have thought, was ample justification for the Clause. If it had been found—and, again, this is not conclusive—that in the past there had been any complaint about this type of thing, if it had been found that it had been exercised in an oppressive way and there had been no check on its exercise, then, no doubt, it would be relevant to bring that out. But no one has alleged that, and it cannot be alleged. If the inspector behaved in an oppressive way, it is quite obvious how the court would act. There is no use in setting up inspectors and entrusting them with important duties unless we make available to them the necessary powers to discharge those duties. That is all this does. It entitles the inspector to go upon certain premises which are limited and defined in subsection (6) of Clause 61. He can go there and ask questions and he is entitled to an answer to the questions. Surely, that is not oppressive. He cannot use third degree. He may ask questions, and why should he not?

Mr. S. O. Davies: It is of no use telling us what a hypothetical inspector might do.

The Solicitor-General: An inspector who got somebody alone and started beating him up and using third degree methods on him—he would be the hypothetical inspector, not the. sort of inspector I am thinking about. It is a complete travesty of the situation to try to deal with this on the footing that inspectors are going to start beating people up. We must give the inspector reasonable powers to do the minimum that he must do if he has to discharge the functions he has to discharge. If we do not give him those powers we may as well wash the Clause out. There is no alternative machinery to this machinery [Interruption.] No. The hon. and learned Member simply proposed to leave a good deal out, and the reasons for which he proposed it were thought by the House not to be adequate. The question is now whether the form should be altered, and the alteration suggested is an unsatisfactory alteration as it stands. I ask the House to say these are reasonable powers and no more than

reasonable powers, and that they are not powers in excess of those necessary to enable an inspector to do what he has to do.

Mr. Bowles: I think the House is a bit anxious at the moment in view of the various explanations that have been given, and, in particular, because of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). It is perfectly true that here we have an example, not for the first time, of a State inquisition, and I would ask the Solicitor-General whether the inspectorate will only act at the instance of the workman. Or is the workman entitled to pursue his own inquiries? I am not bringing this up on the ground that there should be legal representation or not; but here we have an injured man who may be very seriously injured, confined to bed or in hospital, and it would be difficult for him to go about and make inquiries, to establish his case. Does the injured man telephone or write to the insurance office or inspector and ask for the inspector to inquire into his case? Or is it an automatic operation by the insurance office that they detail an inspector to make the inquiries necessary to satisfy them whether there is a liability?
How many inspectors is it proposed to appoint? We may have a very great number of inspectors. I have no idea what the figures may be. This may be a full time job. Investigating even one accident, to go into one case, may take two or three days. It seems to me we might have some information about the expected number of claims that will come under this Bill, and about how many inspectors are likely to be employed. The inspector, on behalf of the man or on behalf of the State or as an intermediary between the State and the man, must have sufficient time to make his inquiries and to come to a right conclusion. I am not complaining about the inspectors. But I think Members in this House have themselves found it worth while, as some people do, to employ accountants to make their Income Tax returns. They are not prepared to leave matters to the tender mercies of the Income Tax inspectors, not because of any anti-social feeling against the inspectors or on the part of the inspectors, at all. When it is a question of the State taking money from you, or of making payments out of its funds to you, the tendency is for one to lean


against the inspector, in the one case, or for the State to lean against the payment, in the other.
From the legal point of view workmen's compensation is tremendously difficult. If an inspector examined a case and came to the conclusion there was no case for a claim and sent along a sworn statement to that effect, it may be that a certain amount of injustice would be done. The workman ought to have, at least, the option of being represented by a member of the legal profession, or by someone qualified in the law. We ought to have a little information on this. I feel apprehensive at the treatment by a great machine working against a little individual who himself will, no doubt, trust very faithfully and very rightly to the assistance he expects to get from the inspector. Nevertheless, the inspector is paid and employed by the State. Many people get jobs in this world by saying "No," and some people get jobs by saying "Yes" as well. I am not satisfied with the position having regard to the very great powers given by this Clause, particularly paragraph (c).

6.0 p.m.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I think that some greater justification should be given for the Clause in its present form. It is- obvious that the State must have power to ascertain the facts, and Clause 61 (2, b) gives the inspector reasonable powers to ascertain them. When we add paragraph (c) to paragraph (b) and then add the powers under Subsection (4) I thing we are giving more powers than are necessary. Under paragraph (c), the inspector is given power to examine "either alone, or in the presence of any other person," whoever he wants to examine. Let us assume that the examination takes place with some person alone. Under Subsection (4, b) any one who
fails to answer any question or to furnish any information or to produce any document or to sign any declaration 
is then liable to prosecution and to a fine of£10 for a first offence and£50 for subsequent offences. What can be the evidence against a man when the only other person present is the inspector? There can be no other evidence than the word of the inspector himself. I do not say for a moment that the inspector, presumably a member of the Civil Service,

will be a harsh and tyrannical fellow who will exercise his powers unreasonably. The point is whether or not to give powers which can be exercised unreasonably. In, paragraph (c), coupled with the penalties provided, we are, in fact, conferring such powers. I submit to the learned Solicitor-General that Clause 61 (2, b) gives him all the reasonable powers for which he is entitled to ask, and he ought not to have the powers conferred by Clause 61 (2, c). I may be wrong about this, but that is what I feel about it on what I have heard, and unless the Solicitor-General can put my mind more at ease than it is at the moment, I shall be compelled to vote against it.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I do not agree that the whole of paragraph (c) should be omitted. The misgiving which I have concerns the present form of paragraph (c) and whether it cannot be altered in such a way as to achieve what the Minister and the learned Solicitor-General desire. The best way to test that is to take the case that was submitted by the Solicitor-General, and to see how the Amendments proposed meet the position, and whether it is not possible to adapt one of these Amendments to this Clause. This Clause is so wide that if it is possible in any way to dispense with any part of it safely -then we ought to do so. I think that is the principle on which to start reasoning. This Clause gives certain rights over everyone in the community. We do not need to cavil about that because, in one way or another, everyone is roped into this and we have, therefore, to be very careful about it. The learned Solicitor-General quite rightly, in my submission, indicated that what he wanted to do was to be able to approach anyone who had any information which bore upon the matters relevant to this Act. That is the real objective to be aimed at: To be able to examine any person who has any information to give with regard to the matters contained in this Act. That is what the learned Solicitor-General himself said was the object to be achieved.
When I look at paragraph (c) as compared with the Amendment proposed, it seems to me that the Amendment will cover all that, and that paragraph (c) goes far beyond it, and is to that extent unnecessary. I am not saying that I do not agree that some provision is necessary. I do think so profoundly, and I should


be very sorry to say or do anything which would weaken the necessary dimensions of the Clause. If we were to adjust paragraph (c) by introducing the Amendment, we would get something like this, and I should have thought that would be sufficient. It would read:
 To examine with respect to any matters under this Act, every person whom he has reasonable cause to believe to be in possession of any information which may assist him in investigating the circumstances in which any injury or disease which has given or may give rise to a claim or benefit, has or may have been received or contracted, and to require every such person to be so examined, and to sign a declaration of the truth of the matters in respect of which he is so examined.
It has all the material words to cover any question or investigation that may be necessary under this Clause. I base my advocacy for the acceptance of that on this: If that is enough to achieve the purpose that we want, then anything further in paragraph (c) is too much, because it goes beyond that, and it is too dangerous, because it gives power which no one should have vested in him unless it is absolutely imperative to have those powers. For those reasons I urge the Government to reconsider this matter and see whether they can modify paragraph (c)more or less on the lines of the third Amendment in the group we are discussing.

Mr. Eden: I would ask the Solicitor-General to look a little further into this matter before he asks the House to come to a decision. I should like to put to the hon. and Warned Gentleman the reason why I think Members in all parts of the House are disturbed at the powers for which he is asking. May I tell him, first, that the powers in paragraph (c) are of a very wide range indeed? They will, in effect, as the situation is now, cover the whole population of these islands. I would ask him to bear in mind what my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) said just now, that those powers, together with the powers on the next page under paragraph (d) are capable of abuse. I think that cannot be denied, and I do not put it any higher than that. I am not suggesting that those powers will, in effect, be abused by any inspector, but I do say we ought not to approve powers that are capable of abuse. We have not heard yet many way that that is not so.

I come to my next point. Various hon Members have tried to impress upon the Government that the powers in paragraph (a) and (b) give the Government all the power that they need. The Solicitor-, Genera] certainly did not give us an adequate explanation why those powers do not go far enough, and unless we can be given an explanation why paragraphs (a) and (b) do not give sufficient power/ I cannot see how in reason the House should be asked to give the powers under paragraph (c). May I put another point? If does seem to me that circumstances are different to those in years gone by, but who will be trying to conceal information from the inspector?
This will be a claim against State funds, and I say that from the explanation so far given to us it is apparent to Members in all parts of the House that the powers given under paragraph (c) are in excess of what the Government really need, and any powers in excess of the absolute need asked for by a Government are quite indefensible. That is, I think, the line that Members of this House must always take in respect of Government legislation. If the Government must have these powers, they must prove the need for them. If they ask for powers in excess, they are asking for something which should not be granted. I hope I have made plain the reasons why we feel anxiety and that this is more than a minor point. I beg the Government to meet the points I have made or withdraw this Clause and look at the matter again, after which they could report further to this House.

6.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: I can only speak a second time on this Amendment by leave of the House. I have listened with great attention and great anxiety to what has been said, because it is not the desire of the Government to ride roughshod over feelings which are deeply entertained by Members of the House. The question has been put fairly and squarely to me by the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) when he asked, "Do you need these powers?" The innuendo is that if the Government do not need the powers they are indefensible. Let me ask in reply, in considering the practical relevance of the particular situation, what are the powers we are giving? They are given


in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). Paragraph (a) is not in dispute, for it is simply a paragraph which enables an inspector at all reasonable times to enter upon premises. That is a power that has been frequently given before, and I think hon. Members on all sides of the House think that it is a necessary power. The right hon. Gentleman and other Members who spoke asked: "Have you not got enough power under paragraph? "I am not sure whether that question assumes the premise that where paragraph (b) gives powers they are not excessive powers. As I understood the argument, the powers given by paragraph (b)are not excessive; in other words, it is not unreasonable or illegitimate that an inspector, having exercised his right to enter upon premises, makes proper investigations. Put in its true form that is what paragraph (b) says.
In what way does paragraph(c) make any addition to that? It really does no more than amplify this power generally and legitimately, that having gone into premises at a reasonable time and having inquiries to make, it is in the interests of the workmen and the State that the inspector should be able to ask questions. It may be said as a matter of construction that if you give a person the power to enter premises to make investigations you are, by implication without more ado, giving him the power to ask questions, because you cannot make investigations without asking questions, that being the most effective weapon with which to make investigations. So that the argument that is adduced can be put in this way: "You have got the powers you need under paragraph (b),"but paragraph (c) is merely tautology. Paragraph (c) simply authorises what is implied in paragraph (b).That is the view which I submit is the true one. Paragraph (b) gives the necessary power, but if it leaves any possible doubt as to the extent of those powers to make investigations and we want to make it perfectly clear to what extent the investigator is allowed to go, it is contained inparagraph (c). I ask the House to say if it does concede that paragraph (b) is reasonable to enable the inspector to make his investigations in other people's premises that paragraph does not make it unreasonable.

Earl Winterton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the last part of the paragraph, because that seems to be a non sequitur to what he is saying?

The Solicitor-General: I want to answer the point made by the Noble Lord and to give it due consideration. Will the House follow me in this? If you are asking people questions, you can write down their answer. You probably do not do it in shorthand but you can take it down on a piece of paper and write the answer which they may give to you. That is a process that may lead to mistakes. Indeed, all Members know from experience that if they have a conversation with a person and if they try to record what that person said even if they do it immediately afterwards, they only get something which approximates to an accurate record of what was said and there are some mistakes. It is much more satisfactory, from everybody's point of view, if you can ask that person to put down himself what he means to say.

Earl Winterton: Earl Winterton indicated dissent.

The Solicitor-General: The noble Lord shakes his head, but I mean this seriously. I hope the House will agree that this is not at all oppressive. The power given to an inspector, to enable him to require the person who is being questioned to put his signature on something, is a safe-guard, and not the reverse. It may be said that if the inspector is to be allowed to go on to premises and have a five minutes' conversation with somebody, and go away and record what he can remember of that conversation, and if importance should be attached to that record, then there is room for mistake, and that that will not be fair to the person who is being questioned. But if the inspector is given power to require the person he is questioning, for the specific purposes of the Act, within the ambit of the words, in Paragaph 2 (c):
… with respect to any matters under this Act,
it is a safeguard, and not the reverse, that he should be enabled to require the person to put his signature on something. He can write himself what is his recollection of what the person said, and ask that person to agree. The person may say that he does not agree with two or three lines of it, and it can be altered, and then


he can sign it, if he agrees. It may be oppressive if it is left entirely to the inspector's recollection, but it is not.

Mr. E. P. Smith: In the hon. and learned Gentleman's defence of paragraph(c),has he not forgotten paragraph (d) which says:
 "to exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect."?
If paragraph (b) stands, what is the need for, paragraph (c)?

The Solicitor-General: It might just as well be said: Why do you need paragraph (c) when you have paragraph (b)? Paragraph (d) simply fills in the loopholes. It means that the inspector shall be enabled effectively to discharge his duty. Paragraph (b) gives powers which are conceded to be legitimate. They are given in wide terms. Paragraph (c) deals with the specific form in which those powers can be exercised. It does not extend them. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] No, it enables the inspector to ask questions.

Mr. Eden: Would I be wrong in saying that in fulfillment of paragraph (c) there is a punitive power in Subsection (4)?

The Solicitor-General: That gives point to the argument I was adducing. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at paragraph. (b), which says:
to make such examination and inquiry as may be necessary…
and will read that in conjunction with Subsection (4), he will see that it means this: Supposing a person fails to furnish any information in response to an inquiry? One does not know where one is. Is that an offence? I should say it probably is, almost certainly is. It makes it plain that the person must answer questions, and furnish information, because the inspector has the right to put questions, and require that information. But if it were left to paragraph (b) which is, ex hypothesi , a legitimate paragraph, then you are in considerable doubt as to when you commit an offence under Subsection (4), if you refuse information.

Mr. W. J. Brown: I would be grateful if the Solicitor-General would address himself to what I thought was the material point I made a few moments ago. Paragraph (c) says:

to examine, either alone or in the presence of any other person…
and if you associate those words with Subsection (4, b) there is the clear possibility that a man can be fined£10 or£50 on the unsupported evidence of one other person. Even admitting what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, we cannot let this Clause go through in its present form, unless we can get over that difficulty.

The Solicitor-General: It is the easiest thing in the world. A person can only be convicted of an offence if the prosecution have proved it beyond all reasonable doubt. If the inspector says, "He refused to answer," and the man says, "I did not," I should have thought that in nine cases out of 10 there was a doubt, and that the case would be dismissed.

Mr. Brown: I should have thought it much better not to provide the inspector with the means of interviewing a man alone.

Mr. S. Silverman: Would my hon. and learned Friend say how far this power, not to ask questions, but to compel people to answer questions, under a criminal penalty, compared with the powers of the police in investigating serious crime? Can a detective inspector investigating a murder case, compel anybody to answer a question, or sign a document?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend knows perfectly well that a policeman cannot make a man answer questions when he is investigating a murder case. But this is not a murder case. What the inspector is investigating here is a hundred miles away from that sort of thing. If there is a smell of criminality the person has protection under Paragraph (4), which says:
…no one shall be required… to answer any question or to give any evidence tending to incriminate himself.
Investigation of murder is in a completely different sphere.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that a man may be compelled, under penalty, to answer questions, the answers to which may deprive him of any benefits under this Bill?

Mr. House: There is a provision against that.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose;—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think the House ought to allow the Solicitor-General to answer the question.

The Solicitor-General: I have forgotten what it was.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: I asked the non and learned Gentleman whether he agrees that a man may be compelled to answer questions, under penalty, the answers to which might forfeit by him any benefits under this Bill.

The Solicitor-General: The answer is, "Yes." Conversely, people whose evidence is necessary to establish the claim to benefit, and who do not want to answer questions, and who are not pre pared to support his claim, equally must be obliged to answer them. It works both ways. In some cases, it will assist the workman when he cannot otherwise obtain assistance; in other cases, when he has an unfounded claim, it will militate against him. The object is to arrive at the truth, and the whole question is whether the powers given to the inspector, to enable the truth to be arrived at, are beyond what is necessary. It was in that form that it was put to me by the right hon‥ Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington. Having heard my explanation, I ask the House to say that they are not. The powers develop in paragraph (c) in one particular, in that they make it clear that power to make an inquiry, which is legitimately given, is to include power to put questions—

Mr. S. Silverman: And power to compel.

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General: That is what it does. If the inspector cannot do that, if people say, "We do not like the look of you. Get out. "We do not propose to answer questions," and if he is able to say, "I hope you will answer these questions, because that is the only way in which I can find out whether the workman, who is unconscious, has or has not a claim "; they can say, "s We do not like the workman either, and we do not propose to support his claim." Conversely a dishonest claim might be put forward and if he has not the power to insist on an answer there is no way in which the insurance officer can be apprised of the facts. What would happen;

what is in fact contemplated? The workman is injured; he reports the matter to an insurance officer who directs the inspector to go and make inquiries, that being the ordinary, obvious thing he would do to see whether it is a proper case. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Eden) asked whether the workman could in addition make inquiries himself. Of course he could. These are not exclusive inquiries, they are simply the inquiries initiated by the insurance officer. The arrangement is elastic. If the trade union said, "We should like you to inquire into a particular aspect of that matter "the inspector would do so. Or the trade union official would go with the inspector. It would (then be a matter of convenience according to how it worked in the particular case. May I say a word to the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown)? He is perturbed about the words, "either alone or in the presence of any other person."

Mr. W. J. Brown: In conjunction with the words on the next page.

The Solicitor-General: Yes, in conjunction with those words. The object is simply to remove the obligation on the inspector of having to ensure that he gets somebody there as a witness to any conversation he may have. Otherwise it is going to be extremely difficult for him if, whenever he goes into premises, and there is somebody in a particular room—a clerk for example whose work deals with contributions or something of the sort, about which the inspector is inquiring—he has to say, "Do you mind waiting? I want to go and fetch somebody to act as a witness to our conversation? "This provision enables him to have his conversation with the clerk alone in the premises which he has visited. There is nothing sinister about it. If the inspector met with a blank refusal he would be very unwise if he then proposed to charge the person without any evidence to corroborate him, because he would know that if the person said "I was perfectly willing to give the information," or "I gave it, but the inspector misunderstood me," or anything of that kind, the case would probably be dismissed as a matter of practical politics. He would not bring a case unless he had managed to get a witness to corroborate his evidence.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: Or a signature.

Major Niall Macpherson: Can the Solicitor-General give an assurance that such signed statements will in no case be used either before a police tribunal or before the courts?

Mr. Medland: That is what they are for.

Major. Macpherson: In military courts of inquiry where statements are signed they are not used in any subsequent court martial, and should not be.

The Solicitor-General: Did the hon. and gallant Member say "court martial?" Surely he means local appeal tribunal?

Major Macpherson: No, I was drawing a parallel with proceedings at military courts of inquiry, where signed statements are taken but are not used and may not be used in any subsequent court martial. I am asking for an assurance that signed statements will not be used either for an appeals tribunal or in any subsequent court of appeal.

The Solicitor-General: I cannot give that assurance. The whole point of taking a signed statement from a person as a witness would be to have it available in case it were useful for evidence. Supposing the person who gave the statement later gave evidence for or against the workman before a local tribunal and said something that was completely contrary to the statement. It would obviously be a gross injustice if the other party could not say, "This is what you said; it is quite contradictory to what you are saying now." It would be undesirable that it should not be possible to use a signed statement.

Major Macpherson: Could it be used as a justification for the award?

Mr. Challen: One point which puzzles me is this. To my mind the Solicitor-General's explanation of paragraph (c) does not really conform with the language of the Clause itself. He rather implies that the inspector gets the person in question to.write out his own story and then says, "Now sign it," but the Clause does not envisage such a set of circumstances.

Earl Winterton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. The Solicitor-General had not finished speaking.

The Solicitor-General: I had given way. I imagine the hon. Member thought I had finished. I thought he was putting a question to me and so did not get up. I had not quite finished. To summarise, we obviously must have powers—that is conceded. The question is whether these powers should include the right to put questions coupled with the sanctions over the page. I answer that question by asking whether the duties are to be properly discharged or not. If the duties are to be discharged the right to question and the right to take proceedings in the event of refusal to co-operate on the part of the person questioned are inevitably necessary. If those powers are not given, and the inspector cannot insist upon having an answer, then the position will constantly arise that the inspector will go to premises and people there will think it a nuisance, or may not like the workman, or be glad to get rid of him—he may have been a nuisance—and they just will not answer questions.
Again, they may dislike the attitude of the inspector, and it will be, in many cases, a complete waste of time and quite impossible to establish a case or to show that it is a case which should not succeed. One hopes that people are normally courteous and will answer questions put to them reasonably by an inspector, but one does know nevertheless that there are a good many cases in which, perhaps through sheer cussedness, and perhaps through more sinister motives, the inspector will meet with a blank refusal, or a half answer, or an answer which does not assist anybody. The House really is faced with this dilemma. Either the powers are to be exercised efficiently, and the inspector must have those powers of putting questions and insisting upon an answer, or one should take away from the inspector the whole of these duties and should say, "It is quite useless causing you to go to premises to make inquiries because we know, a priori, that you will not be able to do so." This is unfortunate, but it is the dilemma in which the House finds itself. There is no escape.
I have done my best to answer the question put to me. I have submitted to the House the case for this paragraph upon the footing that if the inspector is to be able to carry out his duties he must have at least those powers. If it is found


—and this is an argument which one should not use unless it is absolutely necessary—that the system does lead to abuses, the provision can be altered in the future. I quite agree that is not the perfect argument, because one does not want to amend legislation, but one is now making a guess—we are trying to forecast the future and we say, "We think this will work," and we further say with much more confidence, "If it does not work, it will be extremely difficult to administer this Act." Making that forecast, that we think it will work, and upon the basis of that forecast, my answer to the right hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington is that we must have these powers. Therefore, the argument which he based against this Clause upon the view that the powers are unnecessary and therefore if unnecessary, indefensible, does not hold water in this case because, if the inspector is to do what he is charged with doing, he cannot do it unless he has the powers given to him by subparagraph (c).

Earl Winterton: There is one point which I think the House should realise before we go to a Division, and it was put with much aptitude by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) if I may say so. It is quite true, as has been admitted in the Debate, that there is one precedent for a paragraph of this nature in a very limited area, but the House has never before been asked to pass a paragraph of this character at any time in its history in respect of the whole population. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out that under this paragraph we are giving the inspector against a possible malingerer more power than we give to the police against a possible murderer. Why is that so?

Mr. James Griffiths: Would the Noble Lord permit me to interrupt, so that we can get this matter right before we divide? I gather he said that at no time has there been such a paragraph

Earl Winterton: No, I said there was one other.

Mr. Griffiths: Might I, therefore, Mr. Speaker, call attention to the fact that the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill which was introduced by the care taker Government

Earl Winterton: Yes, I said so.

Mr. Griffiths: —in June of this year by hon. Members opposite, amongst whom was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake).

Earl Winterton: Yes, I said specifically there had been one case. If I may say so, the right hon. Gentleman—and I do not blame him—was in such urgent consultation with other Members of the Front Bench to know what the Government should do, that he did not listen to what I said. What I said was that there had been examples, but. in a much narrower area than this, and I return to my original point—

Mr. Lindgren: It is in that Bill.

Earl Winterton: At any rate it has never been passed by this House. I was not a Member of the caretaker Government, and I am entitled, as is every other hon. Member, to call attention to what this Bill is doing, as did the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. Therefore, I repeat the statement, and I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to deny it, that this Government is trying to do something which possibly the caretaker Government tried to do—I do not care if it did or not—he is asking the House to give to the inspector against a possible malingerer powers that this House has always refused to the police against the possible murderer, for the historic and constitutional reason that, when Sir Robert Peel brought in a Bill originally establishing the Police Force, efforts were made to give the police powers not possessed by ordinary members of the public. Again and again we were told that it would be contrary to the whole spirit of British ideas that there should be police in this country like the Continental police. That is what the Government are seeking to do in respect of an inspector—[Hon. Members: "They are not "]. Yes, certainly, seeking to give powers

Mr. Medland: They have always had those powers.

Earl Winterton: They have not, except in respect of one very narrow area. If the House doesnot accept the arguments which have been put forward, not by one side but, one might say. all sides of the House against this, the country will take note of it and will be very disturbed at this evidence of interference with the


rights of the ordinary citizen and subject to a degree which is not necessary in order to carry out the effective administration of this Measure.

Hon. Members: Divide.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: I think the Solicitor-General has dealt fairly and very fully and, I think, very convincingly with the legal arguments on this point. It remains for me to say a word, since I detect that in the last few speeches an attempt to give a political colour to this matter, and it may be that tomorrow there will be a great Tory campaign to defend the liberty of the individual against the Labur Party. I became Minister of National Insurance in August of last year, and I found that there had already been introduced in the House in June the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill which converted the workmen's compensation system of the past into this new social service. Therefore it became essential to put into this Bill a provision to vest powers in inspectors. I discussed with my advisers, as had my predecessor, what these powers should be, and I discussed, too, what was very relevant—should we include new powers in this Bill? Since we are converting workmen's compensation into social insurance it seemed to me clear. We have other insurance scheme; of this kind. National Insurance goes back to 1911, Unemployment Insurance to 1912, and schemes which have since then been coordinated and consolidated by more than one Government to work those Acts which are a parallel to this. The real parallel to this Bill are the existing social insurance schemes.
What were the powers given to inspectors under those schemes? The powers given to inspectors under those Acts are exactly the powers which we have given them in this Bill. They have been there in Health Insurance since 1911 and nobody has discovered that they have destroyed the liberty of the subject; they have been there in Unemployment. Insurance since 1912, and nobody has discovered that they have destroyed the liberty of the subject. My hon. Friends here, and outside the House, who belong to the trade unions have had vast and continuous experience in dealing with problems arising under the Unemployment and Health Insurance Acts, and if

there was abuse of powers I can assure the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. W. J. Brown) that in the last 38 years the trade unionists of this country would have found that these powers given to inspectors were oppressive and helped to depress the worker. But there has not been a single complaint in the whole of the period that the powers have been used in that way. Therefore I came to the conclusion that if these powers had been found desirable and necessary in working the Health Insurance Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act, those powers ought to be taken over now that we are converting workmen's compensation into a social insurance measure.
When I interrupted the Noble Lord I said that in a sense I had inherited this Bill. I believe I have improved my inheritance; I have tried, anyhow. I find that a National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Bill containing a Clause in exactly the same words was introduced into this House in June. It was presented by Mr. Hore-Belisha, supported by the Prime Minister of that day, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Sir J. Anderson), by the then Attorney-General, Sir Donald Somervell, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). That Clause has been there all this time. The important thing for me to remember as Minister was that I was now bringing this service of treatment and payment for the injured into the field of social insurance; therefore, what powers were essential in order to work this scheme? Surely the right thing for me to do was the thing which right hon. Gentlemen opposite did when they presented the Bill in June. If in the last 38 years it had been found necessary to have a Clause of this kind, and if in that period it had not been abused but had been found to be of assistance in working the scheme, and the object of the scheme is to benefit the people, therefore I thought I was indeed on safe ground in incorporating in the Bill which I presented a Clause in exactly the same words as had been incorporated in previous legislation.
This. Bill has to go to another place; I do not propose to give any undertaking at all that we shall withdraw this Clause.


I want to be perfectly sure that the Minister and the officers who work under him have the necessary power to work the scheme successfully, and so far I have been influenced by the fact that these powers have been taken before, but I leave it to the Solicitor-General and if between now and consideration of the Bill in another place we find that the words can be changed, we will look at that. But, if the House is to divide, I give no undertaking I am not going to be responsible for launching a scheme and not taking powers which have been necessary hitherto. I am making that perfectly clear, we are not concerned with seeing that powers are taken in this Bill to interrogate workmen. I know what this means. I know what the existing Workmen's Compensation Act means. Too often a man has had a cheque put before him and has to sign on the dotted line. That is the kind of tyranny we are going to abolish. We do not want to tyrannise anybody, we want to safeguard everybody. The Solicitor-General will look at it again and see if the words are not necessary, and if other words would be better, very well. I believe that the making of this scheme is essentially a matter of supreme importance and I do not want to be denied any powers if I require to have them.

Mr. C. Davies: I am very glad the Minister has said that he will give this matter further consideration. All of us are very anxious that this Bill should be an effective and efficient Measure. There is no desire, certainly on my part, to do anything which will lessen its effectiveness. I certainly did not think that this was an occasion for throwing words from one party to another. I did not do that, but certain speakers began—what I am accustomed to in this House—to sneer at the principles for which I and my

fellow Members stand. I have never retaliated, and would certainly not indudge in retaliation. I do not think the Minister intended to refer to me in anything he said.

We were not satisfied with the Solicitor-General's speech. I am asking the Minister, with legal assistance, to make quite sure that the powers that are being given to him to enter the premises of "A" should not permit investigations by "B," which are to be not only into injuries, but into causes of disease and things of that kind. What we objected to was the power for someone appointed by the Minister to interrogate a person and ask any questions and threaten him with the pains and penalties of the criminal law. That is bad enough, and then the man, having answered, is to be told, without any caution, that he must sign and, if he does not, that he will go to prison. I appeal to the Minister to look into the matter again. I am certain he will find it is not necessary to take these extraordinary powers in this case. With that assurance from the Minister, I should be prepared, if the House will give leave, to let this be as it is in the hands of the Minister, accepting his assurance that he does not desire any other powers.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 43, line 39, leave out from "person ", to "whom ", in line 40.
It was understood that the discussion would be taken on the former Amendment. I wish now to move this Amendment formally.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 138.

Division No. 80.]
AYES.
[6.56 p.m.


Adams, H. R. (Balham)
Belcher, J. W.
Brook, D. (Halifax)


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Bellenger, F. J.
Brooks, T J. (Rothwell)


Alpass, J. H.
Benson, G.
Brown, George (Belper)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Berry, H. 
Brown, T. J. (Ince)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F. 
Brown, W. J. (Rugby)


Attewell, H. C.
Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Buchanan, G.


Austin, H. L
Binns, J 
Burden, T. W.


Ayles, W. H.
Blackburn, Capt. A. R. 
Burke, W. A.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney,S.)


Bacon, Miss A.
Blyton, W. R.
Castle, Mrs. B. A.


Baird, Capt. J.
Boardman, H. 
Champion, A. J.


Balfour, A.
Bottomley, A. G.
Chater, D.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Chetwynd, Capt. G. R


Barstow, P. G.
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Clitherow, Dr R


Barton, C.
Braddock, Mrs. EM.(L'p'l,Exeh'ge)
Cluse, W. S.


Bechervaise, A. E.
Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Cobb, F. A.




Cooks, F. S.
Kenyon, C.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)


Coldrick, W.
Key, C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Collide, P.
King, E. M.
Rogers, G. H. R.


Collindridge, F.
Kinley, J.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Colman, Miss G. M
Kirby, B. V.
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Comyns, Dr. L
Lavers, S.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Cook, T. F.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
Leonard, W.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Crawley, Flt.-Lieut. A
Leslie, J. R.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Daggar, G.
Levy, B. W.
Simmons, C. J.


Daines, P.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lindgren, G. S.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Logan, D. G.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Deer, G.
Longden, F.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Lyne, A. W.
Solley, L. J.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
McAdam, W.
Sorensen, R. W.


Diamond, J.
McAllister, G.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Stamford, W.


Donovan, T.
McGhee, H. G.
Steele, T.


Douglas, F. C. R.
McGovern, J.
Stephen, C.


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mack, J. D
Stross, Dr. B


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Stubbs, A. E.


Durbin, E. F. M.
McKinlay, A S.
Symonds Maj. A. L.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Edelman, M.
McLeavy, F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)
MacMillan, M. K.
Thomas, ivor (Keighley)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Macpherson, T. (Romford)
Thomas, l. O (Wrekin)


Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Mathers, G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Ewart, R.
Mayhew, C. P.
Thorneycroft, H.


Fairhurst, F.
Madland, H. M
Thurtle, E.


Farthing, W. J.
Messer, F.
Tiffany, S.


Follick, M.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Timmons, J.


Foot, M. M. 
Monslow, W.
Titterington, M. F


Forman, J. C.
Montague. F.
Tolley, L.


Foster, W. (Wigal)
Moody, A. S.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Morgan, Dr. H. B
Turner-Samuels, M.


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.
Ungoed-Thomas, L


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)
Usborne, Henry


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Vernon, Maj.W. F.


Gibbins, J.
Mort, D. L.
Viant, S. P.


Gilzean, A.
Moyle, A.
Walker, G. H.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Murray, J. D.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Gooch, E. G.
Nally, W.
Wallace, H. W (Walthamstow, E.)


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Naylor, T. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Grey, C. F.
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Watkins, T. E.


Grierson, E.
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Watson, W. M.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Weitzman, D.


Griffiths, Capt. W. D. (Moss Side)
O'Brien, T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Oldfield, W. H.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Hale, Leslie
Oliver, G. H.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Hall, W. G. (Colne Valley)
Orbach, M.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Palmer, A. M. F.
Wilkinson, Rt. Hon. Ellen


Haworth, J.
Pargiter, G. A.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Parker, J.
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Herbison, Miss M.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Hicks, G.
Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Hobson, C. R.
Pearson, A.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Holman, P.
Perrins, W.
Willis, E.


House, G.
Popplewell, E.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Hoy, J.
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Hubbard, T. 
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Wise, Major F. J.


Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Price, M. P.
Woodburn, A.


Hughes, Emrys
Proctor, W. T.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Ranger, J.
Yates, V. F.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Rankin, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Janner, B.
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Reeves, J.
Zilliacus, K.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Reid, T. (Swindon)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Joseph Henderson and


Jones, J. H. (Bolton) 
Richards, R. 
Captain Michael Stewart.


Jones, Asterley (Hitchin) 
Ridealgh, Mrs. M.



Keenan W. 
Robens, A.








NOES.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hare, Lieut.-Col. H. J. H. (W'db'ge)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.


Amory, D. Heathcoat
Head, Brig. A. H.
Pickthorn, K. 


Astor, Hon. M.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Pitman, l. J.


Barlow, Sir J.
Hogg, Hon. Q.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hope, Lord J.
Prescott, W. R. S.


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Howard, Hon. A.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.


Boothby, R.
Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Hurd, A.
Raikes, H. V.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.
Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Rayner, Brig. R.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Jennings, R.
Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)


Bullock, Capt. M.
Keeling, E. H.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Butcher, H. W.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Renton, D.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'flr'n W'ld'n)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Byers, Lt.-Col. F.
Langford-Holt, J.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Carson, E.
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.
Ross, Sir R.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Legge-Bourke, Mai. E. A. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Clarke, Col. R S.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Scott, Lord W.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Lipson, D. L.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Mac Andrew, Col. Sir C.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E..
Macdonald, Capt. Sir P. (l. of Wight)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Cuthbert, W. N.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Darling, Sir W. Y.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, H. G.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
MacLeod, capt. J.
Sutcliffe, H.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. (Penrith)
Macpherson, Maj. N. (Dumfries)
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Drayson, Capt. G. B.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Duthie, W. S.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Thornton-Kemsley, Col. C N


Eccles, D. M.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Eden, Rt. Hon. A.
Maude, J. C. 
Touche, G. C.


Erroll, Col. F. J.
Mellor, Sir J. 
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Molson, A. H. E.
Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T.


Fox, Sqn.-Ldr. Sir G.
Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)
Walker-Smith, D.


Fraser, Maj. H. C. P. (Stone)
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. W. S. (Cirencester)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Nicholson, G.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Gridley, Sir A.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon Sir H.
Young, Sir A. S. L (Partick)


Grimston, R. V.
Orr-Ewing, l L.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.
Osborne, C.
Mr. Drewe and.


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Major Mott-Radclyffe


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. C. Davies: I beg to move, in page 44, line 16, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
I propose to do this very shortly in view of the long time taken on the Debate on the previous Amendment. I am moving this Amendment because, as in the previous case, the powers in the Clause are much too wide. I hope, however, that the Minister will not get up and tell us that this is a similar provision, that these are all similar provisions. Of course they are. That is the whole of the trouble. These are the kind of provisions which any Executive in any Government introduce in this kind of Bill, It does not matter what Government is in power. I am making no complaint, and no attack upon the Parliamentary draftsmen, for whom I have a very great respect. It is amazing how they know about these little odd Clauses in various odd Acts of Parliament. When they are asked by a Ministry to prepare a Bill,

they put in those Clauses which are relevant, and which they say have never yet been challenged. That is how these provisions have come into this Bill. Thank goodness we have Ministers whose purpose is to defend the House and the country against technicians who will introduce regulations which please them, but which may endanger the individual.
Will the Minister look into this matter in another place, and see if these paragraphs are not much too wide for his purpose? As they stand, a person is bound to answer any question, and if he fails to do so, or to furnish any information, or to produce any document, or to sign any declaration when called upon to do so, under this Clause it is provided that he shall be liable on summary conviction. As to "any question" the only one the layman usually thinks of is the kind one cannot answer by saying "Yes" or "No." Their favourite one is, "Have you stopped beating your


wife? "I am only using that as showing the width of the words used in this Clause. Then, to take the provisions about furnishing any information if the person concerned fails to do so, not wilfully refuses, but just fails, he is liable to summary conviction. As to the liability to produce any document he may say, "I cannot produce it, it is lost, it is destroyed." Nevertheless he has to produce that document. It is no use the hon. Member shaking his head. If he can give any other interpretation of this Clause, I would like to hear it. "Any document" means "any document and if he fails to produce it he fails to produce it—not "wilfully fails to produce it," which is an entirely different thing.

Mr. Donovan: Surely the law takes no account of the impossible?

Mr. Davies: Indeed it does, but here it is not a question of impossibility. As to the provision about intention to conceal any person, the kind of person who may get into difficulties in that respect is a parent. They are the only persons who might try to conceal something which they thought it would be better to conceal. Paragraph (c) also makes it an offence to prevent or attempt to prevent any person from appearing before or being examined by an inspector. I ask the Minister to consider whether this Clause as at present drafted is not much too wide, and whether in another place he will consider either limiting it or doing away with it altogether.

Lieut.-Colonel Byers: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. James Griffiths: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) was good enough to withdraw his previous Amendment on the undertaking I gave, with all the limitations I gave it. That undertaking also applies to this Amendment, and I hope he will withdraw it.

Mr. Davies: In view of the Minister's words, I will, with the leave of the House, withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Peake: Before it is withdrawn—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member has asked leave to withdraw the

Amendment, but if it is to be discussed after he has asked leave, it cannot be withdrawn.

Mr. Peake: It can be negatived. I want to put this point to the Minister: he said he had given an undertaking on the previous Amendment. The most emphatic words I remember him using were that he gave no undertaking. I am not clear what the position is.

Mr. Griffiths: I gave an undertaking to look at the words again, but I want it to be understood that that is not a pledge That was accepted by the hon. and learned Member; it was not accepted by the right hon. Gentleman, who pressed his Amendment to a Division. I have now said that I give again the kind of undertaking which I gave in respect of the hon. and learned Member's previous Amendment, which satisfied him.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 63.— (Exemption from stamp duty.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 45, line 32, leave out from "upon," to end of Clause, and insert:
 such documents used in connection with business under this Act as are specified in the [] Schedule (Documents exempt from stamp duty) to this Act.
This Amendment is consequential arising from the insertion of the new Clause dealing with supplementary schemes. It arises from the power taken to set up these supplementary schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 66.— (General provisions as to offences and penalties.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page46, line 45, at end. insert:
 (b) affixes any used insurance stamp to any insurance card; or.
May I also refer to the next Amendment in the Minister's name, in page 47, line 30, after the second "been" insert affixed to an insurance card or."
These two Amendments really hang together, and they bring this Bill into line with Clause 51 of the National Insurance Bill, enabling proceedings to be taken under this Measure, and as an alternative to proceedings under the Stamp Duties (Amendment) Acts.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. House: I beg to move, in page 47, line 16, after ' regulations," insert:
 (not being regulations requiring any person to submit himself to medical treatment.)
I understand that the Minister is prepared to accept this Amendment, and I will therefore limit myself to moving it.

Mr. Douglas: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. Lindgren: My hon. Friend the Member for North St. Pancras (Mr. House) has moved his Amendment very briefly. On behalf of the Minister I had earlier intimated to him that my right hon. Friend was prepared to accept this Amendment, if the House will agree.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 47, line 30, after the second "been," insert affixed to an insurance card or."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

CLAUSE 76.—— (Mariners and airmen.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 52, line 20, at beginning, insert:
 for excepting from insurance mariners or airmen who neither are domiciled nor have a place of residence in the United Kingdom or.
This Amendment is to provide for the exemption of non-domiciled seamen from paying insurance. Under the Bill as it now stands the employee is covered, but the employer is compelled to pay his portion of the insurance. Representations were made to my right hon. Friend by various shipping interests that this should not be included in the Bill. Consultations have taken place with the National Union of Seamen, and both sides of the industry agree, that this is a fair and reasonable Amendment. We recommend it to the House, it having been asked for by the industry and accepted by the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 52, line 20, leave out from "contributions," to "and," in line 22, and insert "any such mariner or airman."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

CLAUSE 80.— (Extension of unemployability supplement and attendance allowance to past cases.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 55, line 40, leave out "1943," and insert "I945."
This is a drafting Amendment, arising from the fact that just before the Christ-

mas Recess this House passed an amending Act to the Pneumoconiosis Act to enable new persons to be brought within the 1943 Act who were excluded by reason of war service. It is purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 81.— (Northern Ireland.)

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 56, line 9, at end, insert:
 (2) On the making of any such arrangements there shall be constituted a Joint Authority (hereafter in this Act referred to as ' the Joint Authority ') consisting of the Minister and of the appropriate authority in Northern Ireland, and the Joint Authority shall have power, in connection with the arrangements—
(a) to make any necessary financial adjustments between the Industrial Injuries Fund and any fund established under the Northern Irish legislation; and
(b) to discharge such other functions for the co-ordination of the said two systems as may be provided by the arrangements.
The provisions of the [] Schedule (Constitution, etc., of Joint Authority) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the constitution of the Joint Authority and other matters relating thereo."
We might perhaps consider this and the following Amendments together. The purpose is to make arrangements in this Bill, as in the National Insurance Bill, to co-ordinate reciprocal arrangements with the Government of Northern Ireland. The Government of Northern Ireland have indicated that they propose to introduce legislation covering the same wide field, and it became essential, in order that arrangements in the future, as in the past, should be of the same cordial character of coordination, to incorporate a new Clause, and this will meet the circumstances.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 56, line 19, at end, insert:
 (b) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both under this Act and under the Northern Irish legislation, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned.
In line 23, at end, insert:
 and that the joint authority shall be substituted for the Minister in relation to the making of any regulations (other than regulations providing for such a substitution).
In line 24, leave out paragraph (c).— [Mr. J. Griffiths.]

CLAUSE 82.—(Dominions, colonies and foreign countries.)

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 57, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of Clause, and insert:
 (2) The modifications of this Act which may be made by virtue of the foregoing Subsection shall include provision—
(a) for securing that acts, omissions and events having any effect for the purposes of the law of the country in respect of which the agreement is made shall have a corresponding effect for the purposes of this Act (but not so as to confer a right to double benefit);
 (b) for determining, in cases where rights accrue both under this Act and under the law of the said country, which of those rights shall be available to the person concerned;
(c) for making the provisions as to the administration and enforcement of this Act referred to in the Fifth Schedule to this Act applicable also for the purposes of the law of the said country;
(d) for making any necessary financial adjustments by payments into or out of the Industrial Injuries Fund."
This has the same purpose— reciprocal arrangements with Dominions and other countries. These words are included because they are the words which were found suitable for the National Insurance Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 84—(Regulations to be laid before Parliament.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page 57, line 32, at beginning, insert:
No order shall be made under the Section of this Act relating to supplementary schemes and.
This again is consequential on the introduction of the new Clause relating to supplementary schemes.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 85.— (Interpretation.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. House: In page 58, line 43, at end, insert:
 or such other person or class of persons as the Minister may prescribe.

Mr. House: Mr. House rose—

Mr. Speaker: I do not select this Amendment now; we had a long discussion on it last night.

Mr. James Griffiths: I beg to move, in page 59, line 42, at end, insert:
 (b) a person shall be deemed to be between any two ages therein mentioned if he has attained the first mentioned age and has not attained the second mentioned age.
We now have a new age group and. these words are consequential on the arrangements which have been made.

Amendment agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.— (Constitution etc. of Joint Authority.)

1.The Joint Authority shall be a body corporate by the name of "the Industrial Injuries joint Authority ", and shall have an official seal which shall be officially and judicially noticed, and the seal of the Authority may be authenticated by either member of, or the secretary to, the Authority, or by any person authorised by the Authority to act on behalf of the secretary.
2.Either member of the Joint Authority shall be entitled, subject to and in accordance with any rules laid down by the Authority, to appoint a deputy to act for him at meetings of the Authority at which he is unable to be present.
3. The Documentary Evidence Act, 1868, shall apply to the Joint Authority as if that Authority were included in the first column of the Schedule to the said Act, and as if either member or the secretary, or any person authorised to act on behalf of the secretary, of the Authority were mentioned in the second column of that Schedule, and as if the regulations referred to in that Act included any document issued by the Authority.— [Mr. Lindgren.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, "That this be a Schedule to the Bill."
This is consequential upon Clause 81, which has already been agreed to by the House. It brings the Industrial Injuries Bill into line with the National Insurance Bill.

Mr. Renton: I may be wrong, but there seems to be a very small clerical error, by the omission in paragraph 3, line 3, of the word "a." Surely it should read "as if either a member or the secretary.…" I do not think it is meant to be "either member or the secretary."

Mr. Lindgren: If that is an error, may we have the permission of the House to alter it accordingly?

Mr. Speaker: That can be done in another place, or perhaps in reprinting.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

NEW SCHEDULE—(Documents exempt from stamp duty.)

1.Draft or order or receipt given in respect of benefit payable under this Act or under any supplementary scheme, or in respect of any sums payable to the body charged with the administration of a supplementary scheme.
2.Letter or power of attorney granted by any person as trustee for the transfer of any money vested in his name in the public funds or in any other securities and forming part of any funds applicable for the purpose of any supplementary scheme.
3.Agreement, bond or other security made or given for the purpose of, or in connection with, any supplementary scheme.
4.Appointment or revocation of appointment of an agent, appointment of a new trustee, and any conveyance or transfer made for effectuating the appointment of a new trustee and any other document authorised by or in pursuance of this Act or of any supplementary scheme or otherwise required in order to give effect to the provisions of this Act, including a statutory declaration.
5. Receipt given in respect of a refund or return of contributions or fees paid under this Act.— [Mr. Lindgren.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, "That this be a Schedule to the Bill."
This Schedule implements Clause 63, and again reproduces the Sixth Schedule of the National Insurance Bill. It is consequential on the power to make supplementary schemes contained in this Bill.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Third Schedule.— (Rates of disablement pension.)

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page68, leave out line 9.
This Amendment and the following Amendments arise from the Amendment which was accepted by the House during its discussions yesterday on the change of the basis of assessment of disablement benefit arising from injuries. The Amendment is accordingly consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendments made.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.— (Provisions limiting benefit payable in respect of any death.)

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, in page69, line 14, leave out:
or to an allowance under the said Section twenty-four.

The effect of the Amendment will be that the allowance referred to will be paid irrespective of whether a pension, gratuity or allowance is being paid to another person in respect of the same death.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 69, line 17, leave out from "parent," to end of paragraph.

In page 69, line 20, at end insert:
" 3.—(1) Where a person would but for either of the foregoing paragraphs be entitled in respect of the death of an insured person to a pension under the said Section twenty-three, he shall, subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, be entitled in lieu thereof to a gratuity.
(2)The amount of any gratuity payable by virtue of this paragraph shall, subject to the provisions of this Act limiting that amount by reference to the deceased's contributions to the beneficiary's maintenance, and subject also to the following provisions of this Schedule, be one hundred and four pounds; and any such gratuity shall be payable, if and in such case as regulations so provide, by instalments.
(3)No person shall be entitled in respect of the death of any insured person both to a gratuity under this paragraph and to an allowance under the said Section twenty-three.
4. No person shall be entitled in respect of the death of any insured person both to an allowance under the said Section twenty-four and to a pension or gratuity, or to an allowance both under the said Section twenty-three and under the said Section twenty-four."
5.—(1) The death benefit payable in respect of the death of any insured person by way of parents' gratuities shall not exceed seventy-eight pounds.

(2) The death benefit payable as aforesaid by way of relatives' gratuities shall not exceed fifty-two pounds, except where either—
(a)no person is entitled in respect of the deceased's death to a pension; or
(b)some person is entitled in respect thereof to a gratuity in lieu of a pension;
and shall not in any case exceed one hundred and four pounds.?
(3) The limits imposed by the last foregoing sub-paragraph may be applied 'either by excluding from the right to a gratuity some of the persons satisfying the conditions for receipt thereof, or by reducing in any pro portions the gratuities payable to those persons, or partly in one way and partly in the other; and regulations may make provision as to the manner in which any of the limits imposed by this paragraph are to be applied in any prescribed circumstances.
6.—1) A person shall be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as satisfying the conditions for the receipt of a pension under the said Section twenty-three notwithstanding that he is a child, if he may satisfy those conditions on ceasing to be a child.



(2)The provision of this Schedule limiting the number of persons entitled to a pension under the said Section twenty-three shall not preclude a person from becoming so entitled on ceasing to be a child by reason only of some other person having previously been so entitled.
(3)For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) of the last foregoing paragraph, any pension or gratuity under the said Section twenty- three to which a person may become entitled on ceasing to be a child shall be disregarded.

In page 69, line 21, leave out from the beginning to end of sub-paragraph, and insert:
(1) Where a person entitled, or who may become entitled, to any such benefit as is mentioned in this Schedule dies within the prescribed time after the deceased without being awarded that benefit, that person shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Schedule, except in so far as it relates to an allowance under Section twenty-one of this Act:
Provided that where an award of benefit in respect of the deceased's death, based on the fact that that person was or might become entitled as aforesaid, has been made in favour of some other person, the death of the first-mentioned person shall not affect that award so as to deprive that other person of any benefit thereby awarded, except where, by reason of the first-mentioned person's death, a further award of benefit of a different description is made on review in favour of that other person."— [Mr. Lindgren.]

SIXTH SCHEDULE— (Enactments repealed.)

Amendment made; In page 72, line 53, at end, insert:.

9&amp; 10 Geo. 6 C.I6
The Workmen's Compensation (Pneumoconiosis) Act, 1945.
The whole. Act
[Mr. James Griffiths]

Bill to be read the Third time upon Friday, and to be printed [Bill 79].

Orders of the Day — DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

Resolved:
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the United States of America of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income! (U:S.A.) Order, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 28th January, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.

Resolved:
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the United States of America of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Estate Duty) (U.S.A.)

Order, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 28th January, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft.

Resolved:
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that, on the ratification by the Government of the French Republic of the Agreement set out in the Schedule to the Draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order, 1946, a copy of which was presented on 28th January, an Order may be made in the form of that Draft."— [Mr. Glenvil Hall.]

To be presented by Privy Councillors or Members of His Majesty's Household.

Orders of the Day — AIR NAVIGATION

7.35 p.m.

Sir John Mellor: I beg to move,
 That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945 entitled the Air Navigation (Amendment) (Ministry of Civil Aviation) Order, 1945 (S.R.&amp; O., 1945, No.1637), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
This prayer raises an important question of legislative principle. Whatever view the House may take of the observations I am about to make, all Members will, I think, be grateful to the Scrutinising Committee for having called attention to points of difficulty. I should make it clear at once that I am raising nothing which has to do with the merits of the matter. The purpose of the Order is merely to substitute "The Minister of Civil Aviation" for "The Secretary of State for Air '' in the various Air Navigation Orders which are already in existence.
The point to which I particularly want to draw attention is— and this is my principal objection— that the Order contains retrospective provisions without express statutory sanction To that point the Scrutinising Committee drew particular attention. The Committee considered a Provisional Order, which was drafted to all intents and purposes in the same terms as this Order. They observed, as a result of that scrutiny, and after consideration of a memorandum from the Ministry, as follows:
 Statutory Rules and Orders, should not purport to have restrospective operation unless Parliament has expressly so provided.
Those words are contained in the Second Special Report of the Scrutinising Committee. It was ordered to be printed on


11th December. At this stage I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he will, when he comes to reply, say whether he agrees with the words which I have just quoted from the report of the Committee.
The Order, which is No. 1637 of 1945, was made on 20th December. It contained in Article 2 this provision:
 This Order shall be deemed to have effect as from the date of the passing of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act, 1945.
That date was 25th April of last year. In the Order, no authority whatsoever is recited for making that provision retrospective. All it says is:
 Whereas it is expedient that, consequent upon the enactment of the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act, 1945, the said Order should be amended in manner hereinafter appearing.….
There is no recitation of any express authority for making the provision contained in Article 2 retrospective. The explanation which was offered by the Department to the Scrutinising Committee was as follows:
 The authority for making the Order retrospective is contained in Section 30, Subsection (2), of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, the provision in question being deemed in the circumstances of the case to be necessary or expedient for the purposes of the Order.
I would ask the House to consider the terms of Section 30, Subsection (2), which are:
 An Order in Council made under any of the provisions of the principal Act and this Act may contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to His Majesty in Council to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of this Order.
There is no express authority there for making any provisions in such an Order retrospective. I should be glad if the Parliamentary Secretary will say whether or not he agrees with that statement. Apparently, it is quite common whenever it is consdered necessary that power should be given for an Order to be made with retrospective operation, for such express power to be contained in the governing Statute. In that connection, the Scrutinising Committee drew attention to the provisions under Section 4 of the Chartered and Other Bodies (Temporary Provisions) Act of 1939. In Section 4 of that Act one finds the following words:
 Any Order in Council made under Section 2 of this Act shall, if the Order so provides, have effect as from such date as may be specified therein, not being a date earlier than the first day of September 1939.

I am pleased to see the Attorney-General present in order to assist the Minister, because I now propose to quote an extract which I have taken from Maxwell on Interpretation of Statutes, page 189. Again, I should be glad to know whether this statement is accepted by the Attorney-General as a correct statement of law. The statement is:
It is a fundamental rule of English law that no Statute shall be construed to have a retrospective operation unless such a construction appears very clearly in the terms of the Act or arises by necessary and distinct implication.
I submit that a fortiori, or at least equally, power granted by Statute should not be exercised retrospectively unless the Statute granting that power expressly so provides. I hope the Minister will say whether he agrees with that proposition. Surely, if the Government have found it necessary to make retrospective provision it should have been done by a Bill so that it could have received the proper consideration of this House. As the merits are apparently non-controversial, a Bill would have been a much more simple operation than this Order has turned out to be. The Department has already made some reference to that in the Memorandum which was submitted to the Scrutinising Committee. They said:
 Those powers had not, however, been transferred to the Minister by the Act of 1945 since transfer by Act of Parliament of powers given by Order in Council was regarded as inappropriate.
I cannot quite see the force of that statement. I ask the Minister whether or not he is advised that this retrospective operation of the Order is ultra vires? If he believes it to be not ultra vires, then does he consider it a desirable form of delegated legislation? In either case will he agree that in view of it being at least undesirable, it would be better that this Order should be annulled? The matter could then be dealt with perfectly simply by a short Bill which would not be controversial.
There is only one further point to which I should draw attention, and that is the question of consolidation. It was mentioned in the Report of the Scrutinising Committee. If we look at this Order No. 1637 we see that there have been already, before this Order, 33 Amendments to the principal Order which was made in 1923. The Scrutinising Committee made this observation:


 In the further examination of this amending Order in Council your Committee became. aware that it appears to be the 34th Order amending the Order. They consider this long sequence of documents should be consolidated.
I agree with that most strongly because if anyone wishes to ascertain what the position of the law is at the moment he is in great difficulties. I myself thought it would be desirable to have in my possession for the purpose of this discussion a copy of the principal Order of 1923. Rather than have to carry about a large book from the Library where, of course, there are copies of the principal Order, I inquired at the Vote Office and was told it was too long ago for them. I then inquired at the Sale Office who said they would procure a copy from the Stationery Office. I received a reply this morning that the principal Order of 1923 was out of print. When the principal Order is out of print it is not very easy for any seeker after the present position of the law to discover from such of the 33 Amendments which happen to be in print what the position is.
This is not merely a subject of historical interest, because these Air Navigation Orders govern all the obligations and rights, and so on, of civil aviation. The Parliamentary Secretary will correct me if I am wrong, but I think they govern everything to do with air navigation. There must be many people now who are desirous of ascertaining what they can and cannot do. Therefore, it seems to me to be very unsatisfactory that they should have to examine, altogether, some 30-odd Orders, several of which are presumably out of print. I think that the Ministry should take note of the observations of the Scrutinising Committee and see that these Orders are consolidated at a very early date.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
I think that all hon. Members who have listened to the case put forward by my hon. Friend this evening will agree that it is one of considerable substance. There are, to my mind, three or four important matters arising out of this Order. In the first place, as my hon. Friend mentioned, there is the question of retrospective legislation, and I think he has shown to the House that there is no authority whatso-

ever in the 1936 Air Navigation Act to make retrospective legislation by order under that Act. While I am dealing with that point, I would like to say, with all seriousness, that our charge tonight lies also in the reply by the Department of Civil Aviation, which I think is endeavouring to mislead this honourable House. They said, in reply to the observations of the Select Committee:
 The authority for making the Orders retrospective is contained in Section 30 (2) of the Air Navigation Act, 1936.
Assuming that some hon. Members had not taken the trouble to look up that Act, the House might have accepted this completely false case of the Ministry of Civil Aviation. I regard these two points as very serious. One is that they have taken retrospective powers without having any authority from Parliament to do so, and, secondly, they have misled the House, in answer to the observations of the Select Committee, by saying that they have these powers and have quoted the Act under which they say they have the powers, when we know quite well, by reading the appropriate Section referred to, that these powers do not exist at all. I would like to have an explanation from the Minister about this very misleading and most improper statement from the Ministry of Civil Aviation.
Thirdly, I would like to say that, if this Order is passed tonight, it will create a precedent. Whether we agree or not with the substance of the Order, we do not agree that such an Order should be allowed to go through without challenge, because of the precedent it may establish for future years. We do not want it stated on future occasions that we allowed, without the authority of Parliament, an Order making retrospective legislation to go through unchallenged. So tonight, unless we get a favourable reply, we propose to take this matter into the Division Lobby. The Government can think of a way of reintroducing this Order in a more effective way by means of a Bill, in which they must ask Parliament and this House to give them the powers to make this retrospective legislation.
The other point which my hon. Friend made was on the question of consolidation, to which the Select Committee drew attention. I would like to ask the Minister whether he has looked up all these other Orders referred to at the


bottom of the first page of the Air Navigation Order. Can he tell us what was in them, because, if he cannot, some of my hon. Friends on this side may be able to help him. Before bringing such an Order before Parliament, he should know, and we should know, what is in those Orders, such as are referred to in the footnote at the bottom of page 1. Surely, the time has now come when, if we are really going to take civil aviation seriously, all these 34 Orders should be consolidated, so that, if anyone wants to find out what the situation is, they should be able to refer to one document and not have to wade through this immense number of Orders in Council and subsidiary Orders that we have to wade through if we wish to understand what this really means.
My hon. Friends and I will give our assurance that, if this Order is withdrawn and a Bill produced in substitution for it, putting the matter on a proper footing, whereby Parliament will be asked to approve retrospective legislation, then we shall assist such a Bill to go through without discussion. I ask the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to withdraw the Order and to do the job properly instead of in this unfortunate and very unsatisfactory way.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I cannot help saying that all of us must have been horrified, when we came to the House, to find this cluster of Orders. It is not often that one has to dive into such a vast volume, but there are five vast volumes now—a mass of Orders—and when I saw this particular Order, and looked at the footnote, in which no less than 33 Orders were referred to, then, indeed, did the cry go up very seriously from all persons unexhausted by Parliamentary procedure and still hoping that it might become better—" Let us pray." We are here tonight to beg that something may be done in this matter, and, in my submission to the House, it is a very good moment to do it. It is quite intolerable that Orders should have gone on, like the family of the old lady in the shoe, getting more and more numerous, until one could do nothing about it, short of child murder Here is a mass of Orders—not 10, or 15, but no less than 33 amalgamated into an enormous snowball which makes it infinitely difficult to look any of them up.
May I point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whom I see in his place, that he twitted me some months ago with the fact that I had failed to notice that a certain Order had been revoked. I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman because lie said it with a smile and it was charmingly put. I went to the Library and looked at the Defence Regulations which are supposed to be kept up to date. They have not been annotated since 20th December. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is surprised to hear that. There is no reason why somebody should not go from the Home Office and keep things in order so that one can see what is up to date. One cannot expect people here to annotate books, because officials of the Home Office do not do it more frequently. The officials themselves are obviously in misery, too. If one looks at the Memorandum of the Select Committee of this House dated 25th February and particularly at paragraph 2(3), one can imagine the misery they must have gone through. It says:
 A close scrutiny of the many Orders in Council containing such powers and repeated consultations with other Departments concerned were necessary before the transfer could be effected by the present Order.
It is simply intolerable. The moment has come to agree that what happened here is, that when the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act, 1945, was about to come into operation in April, an official who was overworked, slipped up, and did not realise it was necessary to wade through an absolute Sargasso Sea in order to get the thing right. Somebody finds it out in the month of December—a long time afterwards—and goes to the Minister who, I suppose, turns it back again to the legal advisers of the Crown and, eventually, it is brought here.
In effect, what the Minister is trying to do is something exceptional. The rule is that, prima jade, legislation is not retrospective, but prospective. If the learned Attorney-General or the learned Solicitor-General, whoever replies, can show that there is something similar elsewhere, well and good, but if there is no precedent it is extremely bad. The ordinary rule is well established and has been recently established in a case which, so far as I know, has not been overruled—the case of the Land and Property Co.versus Pajzs, reported in 1943 in the All England.


Reports, and no doubt elsewhere. The rule is quite clearly established, and there is no doubt in the minds of people who are faithful followers of all this legislation, such as the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor)—who is unflagging in his attention in these matters—and my hon. Friend. As the result of pertinacity and industry, they have, in fact, brought up a most unfortunate instance of carelessness which did not come to light for several months, when it was thought necessary to introduce this Order to put it right. I cannot conceive that was not the case. When the Bill was going through there must have been some carelessness. It should- have been apparent to those responsible that care should be taken to see that this matter was properly dealt with at the time.
In conclusion I would like to say that I am extremely sympathetic to those persons who deal with these matters. The burden is almost intolerable. I hope, as a result of this exposure—and I call it so without any offence—we shall get a consolidation, not merely in respect of this particular Order with all its intolerable accretions, but that the idea will spread like wildfire through a number of other Departments so that Butterworth with its five volumes will shrink down to a comparatively small size and that one will not be bothered with such an Order as the Green Onions Revocation Order. Indeed, the Department is so fond of them that they have given this Order the name of the Green Onions Revocation Order No. 3, 1945. I know that in the exercise of our profession outside these walls this is no laughing matter—it is bread and butter for many of us—but within these walls we must do something about it.

8.7 p.m.

The Attorney-General (Sir Hartley Shawcross): I am not prepared to dissent for a moment from many of the propositions put forward by hon. and hon. and learned Members who have very properly raised this matter. I entirely agree with the general proposition that unless a Statute expressly gives retrospective powers, delegated legislation ought not to take effect retrospectively. Indeed in most cases one looks at, the particular Statutory powers acted under cannot take effect retrospectively. That is a general

principle to which the Government will certainly adhere. If I may be permitted to say so, the Select Committee and the hon. Members who have put down this Prayer have certainly performed a useful function in drawing attention to the general importance of that principle. But, although that is a very sound rule of policy in the exercise of delegated powers, it does not always follow that the powers themselves do not, in law, enable retrospective Orders to be made. One has to look at the powers themselves and see the exact manner in which they have been exercised in a particular case.
Let me say at once about this case that I think it is not an easy one. It is a case about which it is quite possible for two views to be held but, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that what was done here was intra vires. I have also come to the conclusion that whether it was intra vires or not, it has, in effect, not operated to affect any rights at all. I will explain why I have reached that view about it. In one sense, the matter is academic in that it has not effected any illegality, even if one were to assume that the retrospective operation of this Order was ultra vires of the Statute under which it was made. The position was that under powers contained in the original Air Navigation Acts of 1920 and 1936—powers which did not limit the persons to whom such functions might be given or restrict them in any way to the Secretary of State for Air— Orders in Council had, in fact, been made conferring certain functions in c6nnec-tion with what we now know as civil aviation on the Secretary of State for Air. The Civil Aviation Act of 1945, in general, operated to transfer from the Secretary of State for Air to the Minister of Civil Aviation, the Secretary of State's former functions in regard to civil aviation where those functions themselves were based and directly based, upon Statutes, but it did not operate to transfer the civil aviation functions of the Secretary of State where those functions arose not directly from the Statutes but from Orders in Council. That was designedly so, because the practice is that where a matter is dealt with by Order in Council, and the Order-making power still subsists as it does here under the Act of 1920 and the Act of 1936, that matter is not altered or amended by Statute but by


another Order varying or revoking the original one under which the matter first arose.
The result was that although the general intention of the 1945 Act was to transfer the functions of the Secretary of State in connection with civil aviation to the Minister of Civil Aviation, under various Orders certain functions—they related mainly to the granting of licences and so forth in connection with civil aviation—remained vested in the Secretary of State and continued to be lawfully exercisable by the Secretary of State That matter had to be dealt with in order to implement the clear intention of Parliament that, as expressed in the 1945 Act, in future the Minister of Civil Aviation should be generally responsible for all matters relating to civil aviation. Accordingly, not at once but after a lapse of some little time, which occurred for departmental reasons which my hon. Friend will indicate, an Order was made under Section 17 of the Act of 1920, which gave power to revoke or vary Orders which had previously been made under that Section, and under Section 30, Subsection 2 of the 1936 Act, which provided that Orders made under these two Acts, which are read as one, might contain such incidental and supplementary provisions as appear to His Majesty in Council to be necessary and expedient for the purposes of the Order.
There was really nothing sinister about it. All that it did was to deal with the position which had arisen during this transitional period. As the House will understand, it was not possible to transfer all the functions, officials and officers of the Secretary of State for Air in regard to civil aviation at a single instant to the Ministry of Civil Aviation, and for a time it necessarily happened that, notwithstanding the general transfer of powers under the 1945 Act, certain functions continued lawfully to be exercised by the Secretary of State or by his officials or with his authority. They continued to be so exercisable lawfully, because they had been conferred on him by Orders made under the principal Act which had not been varied or revoked by the 1945 Statute. All this Order did was to provide that the name of the Minister of Civil Aviation should be substituted for the name of the Secretary of State in the various Orders which hitherto had in-

vested the Secretary of State with the functions in regard to civil aviation.
The purpose of it was to give effect to the undoubted intention of Parliament that the Minister should be responsible for all matters relating to civil aviation. The retrospective operation of if merely resulted in those who in the interim had been exercising civil aviation functions quite lawfully in the name of the Secretary of State, being deemed to have acted as the agents for the Minister of Civil Aviation in so doing. In that effect and in that operation it was, in the view of the Crown in Council—and the House will notice that this is a matter for the Crown in Council, and not for the House nor indeed for the courts—necessary and expedient to make that provision as a supplementary provision to the main purpose of the Order, which was to transfer those functions in futuro from the Secretary of State, who, up to that moment, had been lawfully exercising them to the Minister of Civil Aviation, who, in future, was to be responsible to Parliament for the general policy of his Department. So far as I can see, in relation to the actual acts which have taken place under this Order, the matter was purely machinery and no legal rights have been affected in the slightest degree. No liberties have been infringed and nothing has been made lawful which was not lawful already. All that has been done is to provide that what was done, and lawfully done, should be deemed to have been done by persons acting as the agents of the Minister of Civil Aviation rather than as the agents of the Secretary of State.
I will go further and say that we will investigate every act that has taken place during the interim period, which may in any way have been affected by the retrospective operation of this Order. If, after investigating every licence which has been granted and every act which has taken place under the Orders and which is affected by this Order, we have any doubt whatever as to the legality of what was done, we will come to the House with the necessary Bill. We do not think that position will arise. We believe this is purely machinery, and that in the events that have occurred, in fact, nothing has, been done in reliance upon the retrospective operation of this Order, which was not already legal under the Orders as they stood before. If that is not the case, we:


will come back to the House. The position as we understand it now, on the facts as we have been able to ascertain them so far, is that nothing which was not already legal has been legalised by this retrospective operation, and, whilst any general retroactive operation is certainly to be avoided in delegated legislation of this kind, its operation in this particular case has been technical and, as I invite the House to say, unobjectionable.

Mr. Maude: Would the learned Attorney-General answer this question before he resumes his seat? It is clear from what he has said that a large, or at least, a substantial burden of work is likely to fall on some official. He has also indicated that this sort of thing will probably be guarded against in the future

The Attorney-General: The Attorney-General indicated assent.

Mr. Maude: I am much obliged to the learned Attorney-General for his nod of assent. That is really largely the object of what we are doing here tonight. Personally I shall be entirely satisfied with the learned Attorney-General's nod.

The Attorney-General: Yes, I have indicated, I hope, that we entirely agree with the view that subordinate legislation ought not to be operated retrospectively unless the Statute giving power so to do is abundantly clear in giving that power.

8.19 p.m

Sir J. Mellor: I think I have a right to say something on this matter, and 1 propose to exercise it very briefly. In view of the last observation of the Attorney-General when he repeated what he had previously said in his speech, it is very difficult to understand how he can claim that this Order is not ultra vires. I have listened with the greatest attention to everything he has said, and it seemed to me that he was not very happy about his case. I also thought he did not feel any great confidence that this matter was intra vires, and still less did he seem to feel that it was a desirable form of delegated legislation. He observed, I think, in support of his argument that the matter was good on its merits. I entirely agree. I said at the outset of my remarks that I had nothing to say about the merits That is common ground. Then he said, that this Order would legalise nothing that was not already legal.
In those circumstances it seems to me that the Order is entirely unnecessary and could be annulled without harm to any one. The reason he gave for the need for making this Order retrospective was that there had been a lapse of time since the passing of the 1945 Act. Of course, it would obviously be right if an Order of this kind had to be made that it should be made to come into operation simultaneously with the 1945 Act, but that was not done I cannot think the courts would take the view that something would be rendered intra vires because of a departmental delay when it would be ultra vires for other reasons. I cannot think the courts would regard the difficulties of the Departments with such indulgence that they would say the delay of something like eight months, April to December, was justified and so rendered the Order intra vires.

The Attorney-General: 1 hope the hon. Member did not understand me as putting forward that proposition. I certainly would not have done so I was merely explaining the facts under which this Order came to be promulgated. I was not saying those facts made the Order legal or illegal. I justified the legality under the terms of the Statute under which it was made. If the House will permit me I will say this. If I thought any substantial number of persons or any number of persons had been affected by this Order, that private rights had been materially affected by it, then I might well take a different view about it. As it is, I would suggest to the House that this matter which may be in doubt, although I have expressed my own view about it, can safely be left to the courts. Nobody has suffered any injury, no rights have been affected, and therefore it is most unlikely that anybody would have recourse to the courts in regard to it

Sir J. Mellor: I really do not think the House ought to be put in that, position. The Attorney-General is now asking us to allow. to be passed some delegated legislation about which he admits he has considerable doubt, because he says that if anybody happens to take the matter to the courts—which I agree is very unlikely—the courts will deal with the matter. We are always being criticised for passing rather sloppy legislation, and I do not think we ought to expose ourselves to justifiable criticism from His Majesty's


judges by permitting this Order to go through. The whole burden of the speech of the Attorney-General was to excuse this retrospective legislation, which he admits is not good, on the grounds of the facts. I cannot see that good facts can turn bad law into good law. I think we should consider this matter, as I endeavoured to raise it, purely as a question of principle. I was anxious to make it clear that in my view the merits do not arise. If the principle is bad, and we have this retrospective provision without any statutory sanction to support it, then I say it is our duty to annul this Order and leave it to to Government to bring in a Bill to put the matter in order, which they could do quite easily without the slightest difficulty or trouble. I hope the Government are not going to be so squeamish that they will not admit they are wrong to pursue this Order, and the right, proper and handsome thing is to say they will accept the annulment and will put the matter right, in which I am quite certain they would have the general assistance and support of the House. I feel that unless the Government can agree we shall have to carry this to a Division.

8.24 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Cvil Aviation (Mr. Ivor Thomas): There are a few things that I ought to say from the departmental point of view. It is perhaps thanks to the excellent air services now provided by my Department that I was able to be in negotiations at the Quai d'Orsay in Paris this morning and in my place in the House of Commons this evening to defend my Department. I hope hon. Members opposite will accept this as proof of the seriousness with which we treat their observations on this matter. In one sense it is an academic matter, but from another point of view it is very important. If I may say so without presumption, I am grateful to the Select Committee and to hon. Members for having raised this matter. I will deal with the question of consolidation which has not been touched on this side of the House so far. I agree entirely with the need for consolidation of the many Orders. That work has been in hand for some time, but it is a long business and it will take some months yet before it is complete. As the House well knows, we have a major Bill in preparation, together with another important Bill.

Obviously those Bills must have precedence, but we regard the consolidation as necessary and desirable.
The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir J. Mellor) has asked me to give a direct and clear answer to the question: Do I agree with the words in the report of the Select Committee to this effect, that they feel strongly that Statutory Rules and Orders should not purport to have retrospective operation unless Parliament has expressly so provided? I do give the clear answer that I accept that injunction, and so far as my Department is concerned I give a promise that it will be carried out in any future Orders. The legal aspect has been dealt with very fully by my hon. and learned Friend and it would be presumptuous of me to attempt to deal with it. All I wish to say from the departmental point of view is that when this Order was made it was naturally made on advice, and there seemed no doubt at all at the time that this Statutory Rule and Order was valid. There was no hesitation at all until the subject was raised by the Select Committee. Here I come to one thing which has been said opposite with which I disagree, and I hope the hon. Member opposite will not feel inclined to press his observations when he said that my Department were attempting to "mislead the House" and had made "a false statement," a statement which was "most improper." I can assure the House that that is not the case. Whatever was done was done in good faith, and every attempt was made to give the Select Committee all the information it desired.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: But surely Section 30 of the Air Navigation Act, 1936, does not give powers for retrospective legislation?

Mr. Ivor Thomas: No, Sir, that is precisely the point which I cannot concede. I have made it clear that when the Order was drafted my Department was of the opinion, and was advised, that powers to make it retrospective were given by the Air Navigation Act, 1936. That was and still is the view of my Department and of our advisers in this matter. But now the Select Committee has raised the matter I can see it is an arguable question. I only say that there are arguments on both sides.
The hon. Baronet was good enough to say he was not raising anything about the merits of the Order. The House may


like to know, however, that it concerns the signing of licences and the renewal of licences for civil aviation personnel such as pilots, navigators and ground engineers; and the signing of certificates and the renewal of certificates of airworthiness of aircraft. The situation could have been obviated if someone in the days of the war had had the foresight to see that when the Ministry of Civil Aviation Act was passed there should have been also passed an Order dealing with these matters. We have inherited this situation from our predecessors. I cannot blame them, because during the war people were far too occupied with other matters to take all these things into account. Therefore, my submission to the House is that the verdict of the House should be, "Not guilty, but do not do it again."

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I have been convinced by the two Government speakers that they really have made the most first-class case for withdrawing this Order. First of all, it seems to be retrospective, and both the last two Government speakers seemed not to like retrospective Orders of this kind. That is a very strong factor for anulling the Order. What is the good of having hon. and also learned Gentlemen here giving us advice that a thing is bad, if they then insist on our keeping it? I think every one of us will agree that they have made an absolutely good case for withdrawing the Order. This Order may seem fairly harmless, but it should be withdrawn. It offends against some other principles with which hon. Members on all sides of the House agree. They say, as I understand it, that for all practical purposes it never was used and is not very much likely to be used. What is the good of keeping an Order going and incurring unpopularity by doing a silly thing which is retrospective, but apparently has not been used and is not likely to be used? What is the good of keeping it going? Why should Ministers not get up and say,

" This Order is not really necessary and not very much wanted, and we shall be very nice and withdraw it tonight, because it obviously offends against the instincts of the people." I see the Attorney-General shakes his head. I am used to that sort of obstinacy by the Law Officers. Why stick to that point of view always?

Law Officers are not the only people in the Government. There are representative and able people in the Cabinet here, sensible and able to adjust themselves to the will of the House. I should not like to draw attention to anyone in particular. It might cause jealousy, and J know there is far too much of that in the ranks of the Government already. But really it does seem the absolute height of absurdity that you have to pass an Order of that sort and make arguments against it and then say you are going to keep it, anyhow. That is how they presented the argument. 1 cannot help the muddle which they made. They must not shake their heads at me and blame me for that. I do say, quite frankly, they have put themselves in an absurd position. There may be other Orders, for all I know. How much stronger their argument will be if they give way gracefully on this occasion and meet the will of the House. I would ask them just to give us this one Order, so that they may not seem so overwhelming and domineering as some people outside are beginning to think. In view of the arguments advanced from the Front Bench, I hope, if it is necessary to have a Division, that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite will vote in the same Lobby as I.

Question put, "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, entitled the Air Navigation (Amendment) (Ministry of Civil Aviation) Order, 1945, a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 264.

Division No. 81.]
AYES.
[8.38 p.m. 


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Cuthbert, W. N.


Astor, Hon. M.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Darling, Sir W. Y.


Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Digby, Maj. S. W.


Bennett, Sir P.
Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. (Penrith)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Clarke, Col. R. S.
Dower, Eric L. Gandar (Caithness)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Drewe, C.


Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan
Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Eccles, D. M.


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Foster, J. G. (Northwich)




Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Glyn, Sir R.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maude, J. C.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Molson, A. H. E.
Smithers, Sir W.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Morris-Jones, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. J.


Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)
Nicholson, G.
Sutcliffe, H.


Hulbert, N. J
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Osborne, C.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Jennings, R.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F.


Keeling, E. H.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
Touche, G. C.


Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Prescott, W R. S.
Turton, R. H.


Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Vane, Lieut.-Col. W. M. T.


Langford-Holt, J.
Raikes, H. V.
Walker-Smith, D.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ramsay, Maj. S.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Rayner, Brig. R.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Linstead, H. N.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Renton, D.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Low, Brig. A. R. W.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Sanderson, Sir F.
Sir John Mellor and


Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold
Scott, Lord W.
Mr. C. Taylor.




NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Delargy, Captain H. J.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Alpass, J. H.
Diamond, J.
Jones, Asterley (Hitchin)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Dobbie, W.
Keenan, W.


Anderson, F. (Whilehaven)
Douglas, F. C. R.
Kenyon, C.


Attewell, H. C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Key, C. W.


Austin, H. L.
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
King, E. M.


Ayles, W. H.
Dumpleton, C. W.
Lavers, S.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Durbin, E. F. M.
Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Baird, Capt. J.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)


Baldwin, A. E.
Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)
Leonard, W.


Balfour, A.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Leslie, J. R.


Barnes, Rt. Hon. A. J.
Ewart, R.
Levy, B. W.


Barton, C.
Fairhurst, F.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Farthing, W. J.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)


Belcher, J. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Follick, M.
Lindgren, G. S.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Foot, M. M.
Lipson, D. L.


Binns, J.
Forman, J. C.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.


Blackburn, Capt. A. R.
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Logan, D. G.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Longden, F.


Blyton, W. R.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Lyne, A. W.


Boardman, H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
McAdam, W.


Bottomley, A. G.
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
McEntee, V. La T.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
McGhee, H. G.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Gibbins, J.
McGovern, J.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Gilzean, A.
Mack, J. D.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
McKay, J. (Wallsend).


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gooch, E. G.
McKinlay, A. S.


Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Buchanan, G.
Granville, E. (Eye)
McLeavy, F.


Burden, T. W.
Grenfell, D. R.
MacMillan, M. K.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Grey, C. F.
Mainwaring, W. H.


Chamberlain, R. A.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu, J. P. W..


Champion, A. J.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Mayhew, C. P.


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Gruffydd, Prof. W. J
Medland, H. M.


Clitherow, Dr R.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Messer, F.


Cluse, W. S.
Hale, Leslie
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.


Cobb, F. A.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Monslow, W.


Cocks, F. S.
Hardy, E. A.
Moody, A. S.


Coldrick, W.
Haworth, J.
Morgan, Dr. H. B.


Collick, P.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Morley, R.


Collindridge, F.
Herbison, Miss M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Hobson, C. R.
Morrison, Rt Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G
Holman, P.
Mort, D. L.


Corlett, Dr. J.
House, G.
Moyle, A.


Daggar, G.
Hoy, J.
Murray, J. D.


Daines, P.
Hubbard, T.
Nally, W.


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Naylor, T. E.


Davies, Clement (Montgomery)
Hughes, Emrys
Neal, H. (Claycross)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hughes, Lt. H. D (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Janner, B.
O'Brien, T.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Oldfield, W. H.


Deer, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Oliver, G. H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Orbach, M.







Paget, R. T.
Simmons, C. J.
Viant, S. P.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Skeffington, A M.
Walker, G. H.


Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Skinnard, F. W.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Pargiter, G. A.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)
Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E)


Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Warbey, W. N.


Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)
Watkins, T. E.


Pearson, A.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Watson, W. M.


Perrins, W.
Snow, Capt. J. W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Popplewell, E.
Solley, L. J.
Weitzman, D.


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Sorensen, R. W.
Wells, W T. (Walsall)


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F..
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Price, M P.
Stamford, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon W.


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Ranger, J.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilkes, Maj. L.


Rankin, J.
Stross, Dr. B.
Wilkins, W. A.


Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.
Stubbs, A. E.
Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)


Reeves, J.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Reid, T. (Swindon)
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)
Williams, D. J (Neath)


Rhodes, H.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Richards, R.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Ridealgh, Mrs. M.
Thomas, l. O. (Wrekin)
Willis, E.


Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)
Wills, Mrs. E. A


Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)
Wise, Major F. J


Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)
Woodburn, A.


Rogers, G. H. R.
Thorneycroft, H.
Yates, V F. 


Scott-Elliot, W.
Tiffany, S.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.
Timmons, J
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Titterington, M. F.
Zilliacus, K.


Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.



Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Turner-Samuels, M.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.
Mr. Mathers and


Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Usborne, Henry
Mr. Joseph Henderson.


Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Orders of the Day — DEFENCE (SERVICES FOR INDUSTRY)REGULATIONS

8.50 p.m.

Lord William Scott (Roxburgh and Selkirk): I beg to move,
 That the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, making Regulations entitled the Defence (Services for Industry) Regulations, 1945 (S R. &amp; O., 1945, No. 1614), a copy of which Order was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
This S.R.& O. No. 1614 is of a completely different nature from the Order with which we have just finished. This Order in Council has the merit of being comparatively brief, and the further merit of having little in the nature of cross-references. These are the only two merits that I can find in it. The Order consists of two paragraphs. With paragraph 1 I have no quarrel at all, but there is one matter in it on which I would like an explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary. Paragraph 1 (2) states":
 Provided that, except in Scotland, prosecution in respect of an offence against these Regulations may be instituted by or on behalf of the Board of Trade.''
As a good Scotsman, I have no wish for the Board of Trade to be given authority to conduct prosecutions in Scotland. I would like to know for certain whether this Clause suggests that no prosecutions will take place in Scotland. I imagine the answer will be that these prosecutions will be initiated by someone other than the Board of Trade.

It says very definitely in this Order:
 by or on behalf of the Board of Trade.
I think we might have an explanation of the meaning why it is not extended to Scotland. Paragraph 2 is a lengthy paragraph, with all of which I am in very definite disagreement. The first part of Paragraph 2 deals with what used to be known as forced labour. It is a paragraph which gives authority to the Board of Trade to make arrangements to provide that:
 research and experiments in matters relating to the manufacture of products of the industry or group of industries, and the promotion and encouragement of such research and experiments by financial assistance or otherwise.
I have never yet in this House of Commons been called upon to agree to any legislation which demands labour without any recompense. Here we have the first example of forced labour with or without recompense. I was rather interested last week when I heard the Attorney-General stating in this House that it was the inalienable right of every free man to withhold his labour. Of course, he made that statement when dealing with a very different Measure to the one which we are now discussing at the present moment—a Measure dealing with the right to strike. We had heard it before, so that it was no new thing although perhaps I have not heard it stated with such emphasis. Here one week later we are discussing whether


the Board of Trade shall or shall not be allowed to impose on industry a demand for research and experiments with or without financial assistance.
We will go on to deal with the question of payments and the manner by which the Board of Trade are going to recoup themselves for money spent on behalf of research experiments, or for other purposes. We learn in paragraph 2 (2) that the Board of Trade will be permitted to exact a levy not exceeding£500,000 in any one year on any one industry or group of industries. I think it might be worthy of consideration to consider how that sum of£500,000 was arrived at. I suppose it might be maintained that it was the maximum figure that the Board of Trade had in mind as being necessary in dealing with any one industry or group of industries in any one year.
I do not suppose there is any Member of this House who would disagree that very, very few industries or groups of industries in this country could stand the strain of an imposition of forced levy of£500,000 more than once in any one year. Paragraph 2 (2) is what might be described as the "inquisition Paragraph." It gives the Board of Trade, roughly, the same sort of authority that 200 or 300 years ago was taken upon themselves by certain authorities in Spain during the period which is known as the Holy Inquisition. It was a time of dictatorial power, which has not been a feature in British legislation until very recent years. Let me admit that certain aspects of legislation we were asked to pass during the days of the Coalition Government savoured extremely of that type of legislation which once was associated with the Inquisition. The last paragraph of all is rather a delightful little paragraph. It is only of two lines and states:
 Any arrangements made by the Board of Trade under this Regulation may be varied by subsequent arrangements made by the Board 
I am in full agreement with that, but it might be extremely inconvenient to the individual who had just been fined under the previous Section. In this Order there is one set of words which I think are more capable of mass interpretation than the rest, and that is in Paragraph 2 (1) where the Board of Trade by way doubtless of a safeguard to industry state that

they will not take upon themselves these measures until:
 after consultation with such organisations or persons as appear to the Board to be representative of the industry or industries concerned.
We have learnt by experience now what a consultation with a Government Department can or may be and in the past even has been. Very often consultations by a Minister is with those with whom he thinks fittest to consult. It does not in any way mean that agreement has been reached with the industry. It merely means that the President of the Board of Trade or whoever is deputising for him has come into contact with certain individuals who, in some way represent, either the industry or some section of that industry and they may or may not be informed what the Minister intends to do. They are informed that there have been consultations and I do not regard those words:
 consultations with such organisations or persons as appear to the Board to be representative of the industry or industries concerned,
as being any safeguard whatsoever in an Order of this kind. This Order was signed about the middle of the summer, and was laid on the Table the day after we returned from the Recess. During the next day's Sitting the President of the Board of Trade referred to it at very considerable length during the Debate on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill. The right hon. and learned Gentleman gave a very pleasing explanation of the reasons of the meaning of this Order, No. 1614. But I must say that the more one reads the Order and the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the greater the gulf one sees between them. I cannot help wondering what really was the full meaning of this Order. It purports to assist industry during the difficult period of reconstruction. One rather wonders whether any great assistance will be given to industry, or groups of industries, if they are liable to a forced levy of£500,000 in any one year. I do not suspect that the Chancellor introduced a levy as a means of assisting towards the balancing of his Budget. It is too small a sum for that, but it is sufficiently large to cause anxiety and dismay to any industry, or group of industries.
I cannot help wondering why the figure of£500,000 was introduced. It is obvious to every Member that a figure which was


suitable for one of our major, or richer, industries was completely unsuitable for one of our smaller industries, or groups of industries. We have been told that the President of the Board of Trade had in mind about 20 industries, or groups of industries—I never could make out which—and I understand that if they were all fined the maximum sum in one year it would produce only£10 millions, which would not be of vital assistance to the Chancellor. I think this Order was introduced for other reasons. I have considerable doubts whether industry could suddenly spend£500,000 in one year on experimental or research work, with any hope of recouping itself, over a period, for that vast capital expenditure. I cannot help thinking that the figure of£500,000 was inserted largely for the purpose of what might be described as intimidation.
What we have noticed for some time— in fact, since the General Election results were declared—is that industries, and groups of industries, have been very nervous about their fate during the coming years. Each one of them has been wondering whether it is high up or low down on the list of those to be nationalised or liquidated, and it has been interesting to watch the behaviour of some of the leaders of these big industries. Their behaviour has reminded me very much of that of neutral States on the borders of Germany in the years 1939 and 1940.
We can all remember the great anxiety of Denmark, Holland, Belgium, and others to explain to the world at large, and to Hitler in particular, how amazingly neutral they were being, and how they had done nothing that could possibly give any justification for the Nazi hordes to cross their particular frontiers. Hitler at that time indulged in a war of nerves, and we are today, in Britain, seeing something rather similar with regard to British industries and groups of industries. They are all scared stiff that they are in due course going to be nationalised, and they are probably quite right about that. So far we have seen that they have put up just about as much opposition to being nationalised as Denmark did when she was invaded by Germany. This war of nerves is going on and I have little doubt that this particular Order, No. 1614, will have that intimidating effect which may be of considerable assistance to the

Socialist outlook of the present Government. I can understand that.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I beg to second the Motion.
During the Debate on the Report stage of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade said, in dealing with this particular Regulation we are debating tonight, "the new Regulation is one... enabling the Board of Trade, should it be so desired, after consultation "—and I ask hon. Members to note the words "after consultation "— "with any particular industry or branch of industry to make arrangements for securing that there shall be co-operative provision within that industry of certain facilities. Those facilities are set out in S.R.& O. No. 1614." I would like to ask whether the word "consultation," as used in this Order, does in fact mean consultation, or does it mean agreement, because, as I understand it, consultation takes place at the request of the Board of Trade with the industries concerned and there may be no agreement whatsoever. The President of the Board of Trade can then take action against those industries under this Order. Although there has been consultation there is no agreement. The President of the Board of Trade can take action against the industries concerned and they have no right of appeal against his decision.
The Order says:
.The Board of Trade may, in relation to any industry or group of industries of the United Kingdom, after consultation with such organisations or persons as appear to the Board to be representative of the industry.
The Order in those words gives the President of the Board of Trade the power to have these consultations with whomsoever he likes. He can leave out certain representatives of the industry; he can consult with those with whom he likes. to consult, and he can leave those he does not like out of the consultations. The Order also makes no provision for specialists in an industry. For example, the President of the Board of Trade may say to the brick-making industry, "We wish the industry to carry out certain experiments with a view to producing better and bigger bricks." Now there may be a man who makes bricks but not bricks for building use—they may be firebricks. He may say, "I am a brick


maker because I make bricks and, therefore, I am to have this levy put upon me which is to be levied on the whole of the brick industry in order to find out how better and bigger bricks can be used for building, but those experiments have no interest to me whatsoever. I do not make bricks for building, I make firebricks." As far as I can see it, in a case like that such a man would be forced to contribute to the research of the brick industry as a whole.
The next point I would like to raise is that, after consultation has taken place between the President of the Board of Trade and the industry, I cannot see anywhere in the Order whether consultation is to take place about how the money is to be spent after the levy has been put upon the industry, and by whom. The Board of Trade can say how the money is to be spent, apparently, and how much is to be spent. I regard this as a shocking Order. [Laughter.] The ribald laughter of hon. Members opposite shows, I think, quite obviously, that they have not studied this Order, that they know nothing about its effects, and I would not mind guaranteeing that there are not half a dozen hon. Members on the other side of the House who have read the Order. To those hon. Members opposite who have taken the trouble to read the Order. I would draw their attention to 2 (I) (d). It says that the Board of Trade may make arrangements for securing, etc., and goes on to say:
 (d) any services conducive to increased efficiency in the production or marketing of products of the industry or group of industries.
Who is to say that these services are conducive to efficiency? Is. the industry to say so, or is the Board of Trade coming into the industry to tell them how to run the industry on what they—the Board of Trade—think are to be more efficient lines? Who will say that?
I would like the next point to be answered by one of the Law Officers because I think it is rather a curious point. During the Report stage of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill the number of this Order was placed in the Schedule. If we are successful—and I hope we shall be—in annulling this Order tonight, I would like to ask what the situation will then be? If we succeed in annulling this Order—[Laughter]—I would ask hon.

Members to try to avoid making, I was going to say what are Zoo-like noises, but perhaps I would be called to Order for an unparliamentary phrase, although they sound somewhat Zoo-like—to try to look at this Order and consider what we are discussing. I would like to know what would be the effect if we succeeded in annulling the Order. I suppose the Government would have to take the Order out of the Schedule of the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill, but I would like to have that assurance because, knowing we are going to try to. get this Order annulled, I do not want to feel that the Government will then try to pull a quick one by leaving it in the Schedule of that Bill, although we have been successful in annulling the Order.

9.16 p.m.

Squadron-Leader Hollis: I am sure we all regret that the President of the Board of Trade is not able to be present this evening. The Board of Trade is a rather curious body which consists, I believe, principally of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and I remember a ditty written by a distinguished hon. Member of this House in which he committed himself to the opinion that:
 This eminent official is grossly over-paid For there wasn't any Board and there isn't any trade.
We hope things will not be as bad as that under the present regime, but I cannot think, if they do not turn out as badly as that, that this Order will make much of a contribution to their amelioration. I think we have particular reason for regretting the absence of the President of the Board of Trade tonight, because it was largely through him that the present misunderstandings about this Order have arisen. When the matter was debated in January, hon. Members had hardly had time to study the Orders which had been given to them only a few hours before, and the President of the Board of Trade made a speech on that occasion which was very mild and reassuring and gave the House the impression that nothing very much was threatened in these Orders. It was only when they looked at the Order itself that they found it extremely difficult to find any reconciliation between what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said and the Orders which were being presented to the House. Therefore, we would have appreciated it had the right hon. and learned


Gentleman been able to come down to the House and give us this reconciliation tonight.

Lieutenant Hughes: Is it in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for an hon. Member to address the House with his hands in his pockets, or one of them?

The Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): That is a question of good taste and not a point of Order.

Squadron-Leader Hollis: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but I do not think I have been alone in offending. We gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not able to come down to the House, but we hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary, whom I take the opportunity of congratulating on his well-deserved honour, will be able to enlighten us. A number of these questions have been raised and I would certainly not detain the House by going over them again, but I would like at any rate to refer to two questions which have not been touched upon and to which I would like specific answers.
The first was referred to by the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) when he told us that the Order said nothing whatever about how this money is to be disbursed. It equally says nothing whatever about how the money is to be levied. It says in paragraph 2 (2) that the Board of Trade has power to levy sums on each industry not exceeding£500,000 per annum, but how that money shall be levied is not stated at all. I should like some information as to how it is to be levied as between one individual and another particular individual and as to what would be the position under this Order of any particular individual in an industry who does not agree with the particular measures that are to be carried out. We are not told in the least what is to be done in a case like this. It is as it stands simply a Measure for no taxation without representation.
The second question to which I would like a specific answer, and it would be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary could give a satisfactory answer, is the question on paragraph 1 (d) to which the hon. Member for Eastbourne also referred. If we were to accept the description by

the President of the Board of Trade that this is a moderate and modest order, then we ought to have a specific answer on this point. According to this Order the Board of Trade may make arrangements for:
 Any services conducive to increased efficiency in the production or marketing of products of the industry or group of industries.
The President of the Board of Trade in his speech gave instances of such things as price fixing, which, he said, would not be covered by the Order. I cannot for the life of me sec why that is not so. I am willing to accept the word of the right hon. Gentleman that he does not intend to issue Orders to this effect, but that is neither here nor there. We are not discussing the intentions of a particular Minister, but we are discussing what the Order is saying. I can see no reason why price fixing should not be included. It has something to dc with the marketing of products, and I would be very interested indeed if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us any example of any sort in regulations such as are indicated in paragraph 2 (1d) which would be ultra vires. It seems to me that there can be no limit whatever to the power that can be used by the President of the Board of Trade under this Order.

9.23 p.m.

Major Spence: In supporting this Prayer, I would like to do it on two main grounds—first, that the Order is not necessary and, second, that the Order as it stands is a bad order. The object of the Order is to carry out industrial research by means of a levy on individual industries. Speaking from my own experience in this connection I would say that the industrialist is not perplexed by the problems of what goods to make and where to sell his goods. His whole problem is one of being allowed to produce his goods and being allowed to sell them by the physical and regulating factors which enter into business today. At a time when this country is being troubled economically by the shortage of consumer goods, and when the world is short of these goods it is all wrong to put a burden like this which will bring us many short term difficulties, and it is all wrong to put such a burden on industry at all.
Under presentday circumstances, when we need more consumer goods in the


shops, when we need exports to bring in the foreign exchange we need, the imposition of this levy on industry, the taking out of industry of technicians for research is quite unjustified. I feel that the position is not appreciated by the Board when they bring forward this Order. In the vast majority of industries today we have no problem of what to produce. The problem is entirely one of production, and of getting round the difficulties which the Board of Trade make for us. On this question of industrial research, I would point out that every industry has in effect got its own research department. After all, the production of every article made by any factory in the country is the result of trial, of experience and of improvement. That is in itself research. The large industrial concerns naturally have their elaborate research laboratories, etc. Almost every major industry has its technical college and technical institution, and these have done great service to our trade, and will continue to do so. Therefore, I feel that the imposition of this added burden, which would be a heavy one in many industries, is not justified at the present time.
Another ground on which I oppose this Order is the fact that it will not work. When one takes into consideration the diversity of research in any classification of industry today, and considers the wide variety of uses to which raw materials are put, it is almost impossible to envisage a research establishment which will take care of all the different branches in any particular industry.
The President of the Board of Trade, when speaking previously, indicated that his idea of a levy would in many cases be a levy on the raw material. Therefore, research would have to cover every branch of the industry from the raw material to the consumer. If research was set up to give true research value to all the concerns who are handling any particular raw material, the whole structure would be so cumbersome, so elaborate, that£500,000 would not cover it, and if it was set up to give real value it would be top heavy, it would not be economic. On those grounds I believe that the project is not justified.
I intended to refer to the question of the paragraphs in the Order and the explanation given to the House on 23rd January by the right hon. and learned Gentleman

the President of the Board of Trade, because there are wide disparities between what he said and what is in the Order. I wish to quote just two. The first has already been quoted, but I want to quote also the President's words. The paragraph in the Order says:
 The Board of Trade may,… after consultation with such organisations or persons as appear to the Board to be representative of the industry or industries concerned, make arrangements…
etc. There is no mention of agreement. Furthermore, it is clear that the Board of Trade is the sole arbiter of who it is to consult. I would like Members on both sides to note the words used by the President of the Board of Trade, when he said:
 Thirdly, there is the safeguard that no imposition of such a levy could be made without the consent of a large part of the industry concerned.…
He also referred to the Order as being
… a flexible instrument of some value, which can be utilised only in those cases in which a large part of the industry is anxious that they should co-operate in order to get the best results out of these general services."— [Official Report, 23rd January, 1946; Vol. 418, c. 206–7.]
In both cases it is implied that there will be agreement, and in both cases it is implied that a large majority—those are the words used—will be in favour of this research being set up. There is a wide divergence between those statements and the actual words in the Order itself. I am sure that all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will agree that it is bad legislation to have one thing said in an Order and another thing said by the Minister. There is not the slightest excuse for allowing this Order to remain in its present form. Many industries are opposed to a scheme for research on the lines suggested, because they say it would tend to a regimentation of production, and with that I agree. It is also easy to see how a link-up of this industrial research scheme with the working parties which have been created will make it all the easier, when the time comes, to nationalise all industries—which is the obvious goal to which the Board of Trade is moving under the present Government.
I hope that the Minister will agree to the annulment of this Order. If he does not, we are entitled to answers to some very specific questions which arise. I should like to know first who is to distribute the funds raised by the Board of Trade? In the setting-up of these research.


establishments, who will do the hiring and firing? Will it be the Board of Trade or the industry concerned? Again, what is to happen to patents, to secret processes? Is all industry to be compelled to lay its work open to these Paul Prys who are put into the business? Finally, will he give some safeguards as to the manner in which industry will be consulted?
I should like to quote again from the words of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade at the end of the Debate. The last words he used were:
 I hope the House will put us in that position so that we may, in this very difficult time of reconstruction, have in our hands this added weapon with which to assist our industries."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd January, 1946; Vol. 418, c 222.] 
I do not think that, in peace time, it is a usual practice to "assist" people with a weapon. I suggest that " coerce "or" compel "would have been a more appropriate choice of word, and would have conveyed more accurately what was in his mind. I feel I can sum up the position by suggesting a cartoon, in which British industry is pictured as a protesting child being offered a bottle of-medicine marked" Industrial research "by a somewhat austere-looking nurse in spectacles, who has behind her back a bludgeon marked "S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1614."

9.34 p.m.

Mr. Jennings: I do not propose to detain the House for more than a few minutes, and I hope that what I have to say is said in the best interests of industry generally. I support this Prayer because I am against the dictatorial powers sought by the President of the Board of Trade over industry today. I think industry is sick to death of the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. McGovern: And with the Government.

Mr. Jennings: I feel perfectly certain that to place in the hands of the President of the Board of Trade the decision as to who does or who does not represent industry is doing a very grave injustice to those people who in his mind are not representative. But they are to be levied to the tune of£500,000 per annum. I think it is grossly unfair that without any explanation whatever one section of an industry is to be taken into the confidence

of the President of the Board of Trade. He is to have powers to ask them to present their books and their accounts. We shall see what they will be levied for. I am in favour of the Prayer, for the reasons I have given. It is high time that the country outside this House knew what we are being let in for in these Orders.

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Belcher): I am afraid that my second appearance at this Box is for the same purpose as my first. I hope that my career here is not to consist exclusively of dealing with Prayers moved by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I am surprised at the violence of the attack which has been made on this Order, and particularly of the form of the attack made by the lion. Gentleman who has just sat down. What we are suggesting is not entirely new and neither is it something which has just come out of the brain of the President of the Board of Trade, that ogre who has such evil designs on British industry. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Gentlemen opposite must remember that the last few words of that sentence should have appeared in quotation marks.
Speaking in another place on 1st August, 1944, not on behalf of the President of the Board of Trade but on behalf of the Coalition Government, it was said that the Government,
' for their part would be prepared to consider sympathetically a proposition for the introduction of enabling legislation for this purpose,"—
that is, the purpose of doing what we propose in this Order,
—if there is sufficient demand for it from industry.
We are told that there is no demand for it from industry.

Lieut.-Colonel Dower: Whom is the hon. Gentleman quoting?

Mr. Belcher: Lord Templemore. [An Hon. Member: "Who is he? "] In case any hon. Member should take me up on the point about there appearing to be no demand from industry, I would point out that we already have consulted a number of most important industries in this country, and that they have indicated their very active support for what we


propose to do. Let me mention the wool industry. I do not think anyone will deny its importance. Then there are hosiery, footwear and furnishing fabrics. I have no doubt that, in the course of time, the list will be very much extended.
The Noble Lord who moved the Prayer asked a specific question about paragraph 1 (2), where it is provided that, except in Scotland, a prosecution in respect of an offence against these Regulations,
 may be instituted by or on behalf of the Board of Trade.
The answer is that, without it, prosecution in England and Wales can be undertaken only by a constable or by the Director of Public Prosecutions. In Scotland, provision already exists for prosecutions to be undertaken by the Lord Advocate. Therefore, Scotland is excepted from the proviso, since the Lord Advocate is the proper person to undertake such prosecutions in Scotland.

Lord William Scott: On that point would he not be conducting his prosecution on behalf of the Board of Trade?

Mr. Belcher: I am advised that the Lard Advocate acts in prosecutions in these matters in Scotland as the Lord Advocate and not on behalf of anybody. Undoubtedly he would be advised on these matters. I was rather puzzled when the Noble Lord referred to paragraph 2 in terms of forced labour.
May I here cover the general points which were raised by all the hon. Members who spoke in support of the Prayer? A great deal of play has been made with the fact that the Order states that after consultation with the various industries concerned the Board of Trade may make arrangements. It is suggested that there is no safeguard either that we might not consult the right people, or enough of them, or that, having consulted them, we may then proceed to make arrangements with which they disagree. In my opinion, from the experience which I have already had at the Board of Trade, it would be utterly impossible to carry out any scheme such as is suggested in this Order—a scheme for securing research and investigation and the collection and publication of statistics and services conducive to increased efficiency—unless we had first consulted people who

were truly representative of the industry and had secured their agreement with what was about to be done.

Mr. Sydney Shephard: Would it not then have been better to put in this Order, "after consultation and agreement "?

Mr. Belcher: The hon. Member must allow the Board of Trade to have some say in these matters. I could go further and pose the question, "Agreement with whom?" It may be that there would be dissident elements inside any particular industry or group of industries who would not see eye to eye with other people in that industry who were perhaps people of more advanced thought. I am surprised that hon. Members opposite are so violent in their opposition. The whole purpose of what we are trying to do is to secure that the provision of research facilities and the other things asked for in this Order is not left to the enlightened minority in any industry, the unenlightened others benefiting by the activities of the enlightened minority, but that after due consultation arrangements are made, particularly financial arrangements, which will compel—I know hon. Members do not like that word—which will compel the reactionary ones to play their part in improving the efficiency of their industry from which they are eventually going to benefit.
The hon. and gallant Member for Central Aberdeen and Kincardine (Major Spence) appeared to me to be arguing against the need for research, which to me indicates an appalling state of mind. I do not believe there is a single industrialist of repute in this country who would say that research is not vitally essential at the present time.

Major Spence: The Parliamentary Secretary has accused me of saying that I entirely disapprove of research. That is completely false. What I object to is research on this scale set up at the present time when we need to get our industry going. I made that very clear in my opening remarks.

An Hon: Member: Five hundred thousand pounds is a fleabite.

Mr. Belcher: The hon. and gallant Member says what we want to do at the present moment is to get our industry


going. We also want to keep it going, I hope the hon. and gallant Member will agree. I suggest that there can be no better way of getting our industry going and keeping it going than by productive research into the most efficient way of operating our industry. As for the cost, there was an interjection by an hon. Member behind me that£500,000 was a flea-bite. To a Parliamentary Secretary like myself,£500,000 is a lot of money, but in one respect the observation was true. In the 1935 census of production, the value of output of one industry— mechanical engineering— was£171million. Half a million pounds raised by a levy on that industry will amount to less than half of 1 per cent. of the total turnover of that industry Is that unreasonable, especially when one knows— I cannot quote exact figures—that there is a substantial return from money expended in research into industries of that kind?

Mr. Shephard: Would the hon. Gentleman say what percentage would be applied to pottery?

Mr. Belcher: I am unable to say, not knowing that the question would be raised, what that percentage would be, but I am able to say that the Committee on behalf of the pottery trade did recommend that what we are asking for in these Regulations should be adopted by the industry.

Mr. Solley: Is the Minister aware, on the question of the return from an investment of£00,000, that one great authority on this matter estimated the return from scientific research of this kind as being in the neighbourhood of 800 per cent., and that more particulars will be found in the book, "The Social Functions of Science "?

Mr. Belcher: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that information. I think my-self that much depends on the particular industry involved, and that, quite obviously, there is more room for research in some industries than in others. I am quite certain that, in almost any industry, research is bound to bring a profitable return. Surely, everybody agrees that, if this country is to re-establish itself in the world and hold the place which it held for so long, it must not fall behind other great nations which, we all know, spend enor-

mous sums of money on research, whether the money is provided by the State or by private industry.
The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor), who appears to take part very frequently in this particular kind of Parliamentary activity, produced the example of a man engaged in the firebrick industry who might be called upon to make a contribution to a fund which was set up to conduct res arch into the brick industry. I know little or nothing about the brick industry or the firebrick industry, but I would have thought that either the firebrick industry can be identified as a completely separate industry from the brick industry or it cannot, so that, if it cannot, money expended on research into the brick industry, since the firebrick industry cannot be divorced from it, must have some useful repercussions.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: I used that only as an example.

Mr. Belcher: I think other examples could have been produced, but the same thing would apply. What we are trying to do—and this was all stated by the President of the Board of Trade in the discussion on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Provisions) Bill—is to provide that Government encouragement and help shall be given to assist industry in this country to maintain itself at the highest possible level of efficiency. We are acting along lines which have been tried and tested in the cotton industry.
We have a Cotton Board which closely resembles the type of organisation which might be set up under this Regulation. I think it is agreed that the Cotton Board has accomplished a useful work. In our export groups connected with various industries, we have raised sums of money by this identical kind of levy from all the firms involved in an industry. The export groups have functioned and, as I know from personal experience during the past two or three weeks, are functioning with very good effect. The industrialists who compose those export groups are quite happy in their relationship with the Board of Trade. We do not try to impose upon them ideas foreign to them, and they do not try to impose on us ideas foreign to us. I agree, we sometimes differ, but out of our discussions a policy is formulated which is good for the in-


dustry and good for the country. I hope that the House, despite the arguments levelled against these Regulations—arguments far more violent than warranted— is going to agree to allow us to retain these powers so that we can encourage British industry to play its full part in the recovery of this country.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. William Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 238; Noes, 83.

Division No. 82.]
AYES.
[9.52 p.m.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Moody, A. S.


Alpass, J. H.
Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Morley, R.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)


Attewell, H. C.
Gibbins, J.
Mort, D. L.


Austin, H. L.
Gilzean, A.
Murray, J. D.


Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Nally, W.


Bacon, Miss A.
Gooch, E. G.
Neal, H. (Claycress)


Baird, Capt. J.
Goodrich, H. E.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)


Balfour, A.
Gordon-Walker, P. C
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)


Barton, C.
Granville, E. (Eye)
Noel-Buxton, Lady


Bechervaise, A. E.
Grenfell, D. R.
Oldfield, W. H.


Belcher, J. W.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Oliver, G. H.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Orbach, M.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Paget, R. T.


Binns, J.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hardy, E. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Blyton, W. R.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Pargiter, G. A.


Boardman, H.
Haworth, J.
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.


Bottomley, A. G.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Perrins, W.


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H.W.
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hobson, C. R.
Porter, E. (Warrington)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Holman, P.
Porter, G. (Leeds)


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
House, G.
Price, M. P.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Hoy, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Hubbard, T.
Ranger, J.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Rankin, J.


Buchanan, G.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Rees-Williams. Lt.-Col. D. R.


Burden, T. W.
Hynd, H. (Hackney C.)
Reeves, J.


Burke, W. A.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Rhodes, H.


Champion, A. J.
Janner, B.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Royle, C.


Cluse, W. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Cobb, F. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, Asterley (Hitchin)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Collick, P.
Keenan, W.
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Collindridge, F.
Kenyon, C.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Colman, Miss G. M.
Key, C. W.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Kirby, B. V.
Skeffington, A. M.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lavers, S.
Skinnard, F. W.


Daggar, G.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Daines, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Leonard, W.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Leslie, J. R.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Solley, L. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Deer, G.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Stamford, W.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Longden, F.
Steele, T.


Delargy, Captain H. J
Lyne, A. W.
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.) 


Diamond, J.
McAdam, W.
Strachey, J


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Douglas, F. C. R.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Driberg, T. E. N.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mack, J. D.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Dumpleton, C. W.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Thomas, L. O. (Wrekin)


Durbin, E. F. M.
McKinlay, A. S.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
McLeavy, F.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
MacMillan, M. K.
Thorneycroft, H


Ewart, R.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Tiffany, S.


Fairhurst, F.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Timmons, J.


Farthing, W. J.
Mathers, G.
Titterington, M. F.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Mayhew, C. P.
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G. 


Foot, M. M.
Medland, H. M.
Turner-Samuels, M. 


Forman, J. C.
Messer, F.
Ungoed-Thomas, L. 


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Usborne, Henry 


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P. 




Walker, G. H.
Wigg, Col. G. E.
Wise, Major F. J.


Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.
Woodburn, A.


Warbey, W. N.
Wilkes, Maj. L.
Yates, V. F.


Watkins, T. E.
Wilkins, W. A.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Watson, W. M.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Zilliacus, K.


Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)



Weitzman, D.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Mr. Pearson and


White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, E.
Mr. Simmons.


Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.





NOES.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hurd, A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Jennings, R.
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Keeling, E. H.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F.


Bullock, Capt. M
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Scott, Lord W.


Challen, Flt.-Lieut C.
Langford-Holt, J.
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Clarke,Col. R. S.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Shepherd, Lieut. W. S. (Bucklow)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lipson, D. L.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. (Penrith)
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dower, Eric L. Gandar (Caithness)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Drewe, C.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Taylor, C. S (Eastbourne)


Eccles, D. M
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Foster, J G. (Northwich)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. F


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Touche, G. C.


Glossop, C. W. H
Maude, J. C.
Turton, R. H.


Glyn, Sir R.
Mellor, Sir J.
Walker-Smith, D.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Head, Brig. A. H.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Nicholson, G.



Hogg, Hon. Q.
Osborne, C.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Commander Agnew and


Hulbert, N. J.
Raikes, H. V.
Major Mott-Radclyffe.

Question put accordingly, "That the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, making Regulations entitled the Defence (Services for Industry) Regulations 1945 (S.R.&' O., 1945, No. 1614), a

Division No. 83.]
AYES.
[10.2 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Raikes, H. V.


Astor, Hon. M.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Bennett, Sir P.
Hurd, A.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Birch, Lt.-Col. Nigel
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W
Renton, D.


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Jennings, R.
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.
Kerr, Sir J. Graham
Sanderson, Sir F.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W H
Scott, Lord W.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G
Shephard, S. (Newark)


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'flr'n W'ld'n)
Langford-Holt, J.
Shepherd, Lieut W. S. (Bucklow)


Challen, Flt.-Lieut. C
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Smiles, Lt.-Cot. Sir W.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Lindsay, Lt.-Col. M. (Solihull)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E..
Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Cuthbert, W. N.
Lucas, Major Sir J.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Digby, Maj. S. W.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Sutcliffe, H.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. (Penrith)
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Dower, Eric L. Gandar (Caithness)
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Drewe, C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Touche, G. C.


Eccles, D M.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Foster, J. G. (Northwich)
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Walker-Smith, D.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Molson, A. H. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Glossop, C. W. H.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj C E.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Glyn, Sir R.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Gomme-Dunean, Col. A. G.
Nicholson, G.
Mr. Maude and


Grimston, R. V.
Osborne, C.
Mr. C. Taylor.


Head, Brig. A. H.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.



Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.





NOES.


Adamson, Mrs. J. L.
Attewell, H. C.
Baird, Capt. J.


Alpass, J. H.
Austin, H. L.
Balfour, A.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.
Barton, C. 


Anderson. F. (Whitehaven)
Bacon, Miss A.
Bechervaise, A. E.

copy of which Order was presented on 22nd January, be annulled."

The House divided: Ayes, 79; Noes", 239.

Belcher, J. W.
Haworth, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Beswick, Flt.-Lieut. F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ranger, J.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Rankin, J.


Binns, J.
Hobson, C. R.
Rees-Williams, Lt.-Col. D. R.


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Holman, P.
Reeves, J.


Blyton, W. R.
House, G.
Reid, T. (Swindon)


Boardman, H.
Hoy, J.
Rhodes, H.


Bottomley, A. G.
Hubbard, T.
Roberts, Sqn.-Ldr. Emrys (Merioneth)


Bowden, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Royle, C.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Scott-Elliot, W.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Segal, Sq.-Ldr. S.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)
Janner, B.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Buchanan, G.
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Burden, T. W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Skeffington, A. M.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Skinnard, F. W.


Champion, A. J.
Jones, Asterley (Hitchin)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Keenan, W.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)


Cluse, W. S.
Key, C. W.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cobb, F. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Lavers, S.
Solley, L. J.


Coldrick, W.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Collick, P.
Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)
Stamford, W.


Collindridge, F.
Leonard, W.
Steele, T.


Colman, Miss G. M,
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Stewart, Capt. Michael (Fulham, E.)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Strachey, J.


Corlett, Dr. J.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Daggar, G.
Lipson, D. L.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Daines, P.
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Longden, F.
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Lyne, A. W.
Thomas, l. O. (Wrekin)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McAdam, W.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)
McGhee, H. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Deer, G.
McGovern, J.
Thorneycroft, H.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Mack, J. D.
Tiffany, S.


Delargy, Captain H. J.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Timmons, J.


Diamond, J.
McKinlay, A. S.
Titterington, M. F.


Dobbie, W.
Maclean, N. (Govan)
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Douglas, F. C. R.
McLeavy, F.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Driberg, T. E. N.
MacMillan, M. K.
Ungoed-Thomas, L.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Usborne, Henry


Dumpleton, C. W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Viant, S. P.


Durbin, E. F. M.
Mathers, G.
Walker, G. H.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mayhew, C. P.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Medland, H. M.
Warbey, W. N.


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Messer, F.
Watkins, T. E


Ewart, R.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Watson, W. M.


Fairhurst, F.
Monslow, W.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Farthing, W. J.
Moody, A. S.
Weitzman, D.


Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)
Morley, R.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Foot, M. M.
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Forman, J. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
Murray, J. D.
Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Nally, W.
Wilkes, Maj. L


Freeman, Peter (Newport)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Wilkins, W. A.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Willey, O G. (Cleveland)


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Gibbins, J.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Gilzean, A.
Oldfield, W. H.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Oliver, G. H.
Willis, E.


Gooch, E. G.
Orbach, M.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Goodrich, H. E.
Paget, R. T.
Wise, Major F. J.


Gordon-Walker, P. C
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Woodburn, A.


Granville, E. (Eye)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Grenfell, D. R.
Pargiter, G. A.
Yates, V. F.


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Parkin, Flt.-Lieut. B. T.
Younger, Maj. Hon. K. G.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Perrins, W.
Zilliacus, K.


Haire, Flt.-Lieut. J. (Wycombe)
Popplewell, E.



Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hardy, E. A.
Porter, G. (Leeds)
Mr. Pearson and


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Price, M. P.
Mr. Simmons.

Orders of the Day — SUPPLIES AND SERVICES (TRANSITIONAL POWERS)

10.10 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move,
 That the Order in Council," dated 20th December, 1945, with respect to the Defence Regulations relating to Requisitioning and similar Powers (S.R.&amp;O., 1945, No. 1616), a copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.
We are in the usual difficulty here that there is no power to propose Amendments. It is a very odd position, because this comes under the Supplies and Services Act, which continues regulations for five years. This House has been dealing in recent weeks with another Measure, also piloted by the Home Secretary, which continues regulations for two years. Although that was a much shorter continuation, the right hon. Gentleman put the regulations in that case in a Schedule, so that we were able to propose Amendments, and I thought that in that respect the right hon. Gentleman behaved very reasonably. He accepted a number of Amendments, and I am sure he will agree with me that the Bill was considerably improved thereby. When that principle is accepted in a case of continuation for two years I cannot understand why the same principle was not accepted in a case of continuation for five years.
However, unlike certain hon. Gentlemen opposite we are bound to have regard to the facts and we must be willing to take things as we find them. I have always thought that one of the many things that are wrong in the outlook of the Party opposite, is that they refuse to take things as they find them. They insist on looking with curiously coloured spectacles on the facts and distorting those facts into something quite unreal with the result that when they try to put their theories into operation, somehow or other the theories do not work. I venture to think that people who do not take things as they find them will not reach better results than people who look facts in the face.[Interruption.] I must not allow myself to be diverted by interruptions. Therefore, I will try to come back to the main theme. If we had any more time I certainly would ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw this Order and amend it. I am sure if he had time the right hon. Gentleman

would be willing to withdraw it, in the light of what we are going to say, and redraft it. But I realise, as a new Order would have to be put through before 24th February, that would not be a practical request to make. Therefore, I shall con-. tent myself with asking the right hon. Gentleman for explanations and assurances and if he can give those explanations and assurances—and, although I never think assurances are as good as something in an Act of Parliament, we shall have to put up with assurances as the second best—we shall refrain from dividing the House. But if we do not get those assurances then, of course, we must show our opposition.
I do hope to show that these are un-precedentedly wide powers for peacetime and in that connection I shall have to ask two questions. In the first place with regard to these powers why are they wanted at all, and, secondly, why are they wanted beyond a very limited scope? I do not propose to deal with all the regulations affected by this Order but some of my hon. Friends behind me will deal with certain of them which require detailed examination Each contains material for a full dress Bill in ordinary circumstances. Although these power occupy only one sheet of paper they take the place of four full-size Bills such as we have in ordinary peacetime. Therefore, they need very detailed examination of the kind that was given upstairs to the corresponding regulations, which were continued only for two years. I shall have to ask the Minister to explain why some of these are wanted, and why others are wanted beyond a very limited extent, and then I shall have to ask for an assurance that there will be introduced by administrative action, limitations corresponding to the limitations which were introduced under pressure from us. in certain. other Bills.
I come to the first of the regulations with which this Order deals. There may be some hon. Members who have not these matters at their finger ends, and I shall have to ask the indulgence of the House while I read the first paragraph at least, in full, because it is a very important paragraph. I checked this with the copy in the Library, which is kept up to date from time to time by the right hon. Gentleman's Department. I find that there is no amendment of the regulation, except one contained in the


third column, so I think that what I shall read will be found to be correct. The right hon. Gentleman will check me if I am wrong It says:
 Any person authorised by a competent authority to act under this Regulation, and subject to any instruction given by the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council, as the case may be, any member of His Majesty's Forces, acting in the course of his duty, as such, may, for any purposes connected with the defence of the Realm—

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): May I intervene?

Mr. Reid: I am reading from the copy which is in the Library.

Mr. Ede: I wish to give an explanation.

Mr. Reid: If I am wrong, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put me right now.

Mr. Ede: I find that I owe an apology to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and to the House as a whole, for the fact that the volume has not been kept as up to date as I hoped it would be. The reason is because the request for the return of the volume was addressed to an officer of this House personally, and not to that officer in his capacity as an officer. The result is that the book has not been returned, while the officer has been abroad. Perhaps I may read the words, as they will appear as a result of the amendment, coupled with the amendment which has already been made:
 Any person authorised by a competent authority to act under this Regulation and subject to any instructions given by the Admiralty, the Army Council, or the Air Council, as the case may be, any member of His Majesty's Forces acting in the course of his duty, as such, may, for any of the purposes specified in Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, 1945, do any work on any land.

Mr. Reid: That is why I raised this matter. I thought it was rather queer for the right hon. Gentleman to leave in the Order a reference to the prosecution of the war. Thai seemed a little odd, and I thought it well to raise the matter to see whether the copy in the Library was correct or not. I am glad to hear that it is not right. I take it that the Order is now limited to the purposes set out in Section 1 (1) of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act. These purposes are very wide The Act is:
for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services as to

secure a sufficiency of essentials for the well being of the community, or their equitable distribution, or their availability at fair prices, or to facilitate the demobilisaton and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly disposal of surplus material, or to facilitate the readjustment of industry and commerce to the requirements of the community in time of peace, or to assist in the relief of suffering in the restoration and distribution of essential supplies and services in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, or in foreign countries in grave distress as a result of the war.
I hope I am right this time, and that there have not been amendments in another place which I have not been able to pick up. The first thing that leaps to the eye on paragraph 1 of the regulations is that it is extremely summary. There is no provision for any notice being given before the work is done or before the land is entered upon. There is no provision for any appeal or for any representations by the owner or occupier against the carrying out of the work. Of course that was essential in war time because under this regulation a great many of the fortifications that we saw all over the country were put up, and obviously it might be necessary at any moment to enter upon anybody's land for the purpose of doing all manner of work for the defence of the realm. But that does not apply any more. I am bound to say that had I not known that the right hon. Gentleman and his subordinates are grossly overworked, I should have expected that there would be introduced into this regulation, by way of amendment in the third column, provisions for notice, and for an opportunity to make representations such as were accepted in connection with the other Bill.
After all, the Minister of Health, who was rather fess reasonable than the right hon. Gentleman, was—no doubt under pressure—ultimately compelled to accept seven days' notice in the case of billeting. I should have thought that in the case of doing work on land, and still more in the case of requisitioning— to which I am coming in a moment— the case for notice was a good deal stronger, and that the right hon. Gentleman would have taken a hint and put something in. But he did not, and therefore I ask him now, at the end of the day, to give an assurance that work will not be done on land under this regulation, unless adequate notice has been given and unless there has been an opportunity to make representations


which the Department were willing to hear.
I will not expand that point now because it arises even more importantly on the next regulation with which I propose to deal. What I do want to know about this regulation is why it is wanted at all. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell me that there is some reason for it and that he has not put it in unnecessarily, but my hon. Friends and I cannot imagine any case under which it is necessary in peacetime to do work on land without taking possession of it. This regulation applies only where possession is not taken but where land is entered but left in someone else's possession and work done upon it. The work may be putting up a building, knocking down a building, digging a hole, making a mound, or something of. that sort. Of course it was done in war time, but why should the Minister of Supply want to do it in peace time—and the Minister of Supply I think is going to do most of the damage. Why should the Admiralty, in peacetime, want to come in and knock down property on land of which they are not in possession? Why should the Army Council want to do it, or the Air Council and any member of His Majesty's Forces—even a private soldier is to be allowed to do it. I cannot understand it at all. It was right in war time, but it does seem odd that in peace time we are to pass a regulation which says that, subject to any instructions given by the three Service departments, any member of His Majesty's Forces, acting in the course of his duties, may do any work on land. This is unprecedented in peace time and I am surprised that the Service Departments still maintain their demand and have not abated it one bit. I hope we shall be told what kind of work is to he done, and that we shall receive assurances, limiting narrowly in this case, the use which is to be made of this regulation.
Then I ask, to whom are these powers to be delegated, for this makes a good deal of difference? If we could be assured that the operation of this Order would remain in the hands of the Department, or at least of some high authority, then we could rely, to a large extent, on its being carried out reasonably. But there is power to delegate to any extent, and

the further you delegate, the more difficult it is for representations to be made to higher quarters, or to guarantee that those representations will be properly examined. I hope, therefore, that on this regulation we shall get adequate assurances on these points. I cannot see why it is needed at all, but I hope that what we hear will show that its purpose is narrowed very much, and that we shall have assurances about notice and power to make an appeal, and assurances that these great powers will not be put in the hands of subordinate servants.
I pass to the second part of Regulation 50 which raises a separate point. This regulation allows a competent authority to prohibit, or to restrict the doing on any land of any such work as may be specified in the Order. I have some difficulty in seeing why that should be necessary. In practically every Measure I can think of which authorises the acquisition of land, there is also authorised the creation of easements, or servitudes as we call them, under which the Department could prevent a neighbouring user from using his land in such a way as to injure the interests of the Department. When that occurs in an Act of Parliament it is commonly accompanied by a provision for compensation. But here, unless I am mistaken— and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will cor-reGt me if I am wrong— there is no provision for compensation. In the Compensation (Defence) Act of 1939 there is provision for compensation when you take possession; there is provision for compensation when you do work on the land, but I cannot find any provision for compensation when you prohibit someone else from doing work on the land. I should be very glad to be assured that, in practice at least such compensation is to be given in cases such as these. I may be wrong, because the position is complicated.

Mr. Ede: With what regulation is the right hon. Gentleman dealing now?

Mr. Reid: I am dealing with No. 50 (2). I should have thought that whatever might have been allowed in wartime, it is not right, in peacetime, for anyone to prohibit a man using land, in a way in which he is legally entitled to do, just because he might be interfering with you and to prohibit it without providing compensation. I cannot see


why this should be so. Is there to be adequate opportunity of representation? Will representatives be listened to, and what is being done about the matter of compensation? The same situation does not arise under No. 50 (1) because there the work is done before action is taken.
Now I come to paragraph 3. I would ask the Minister for an assurance which I am sure can be given, and which ought to be put on record. This is a provision which, quite rightly, says that if the occupier is not responsible for the dangerous condition of his land, if that dangerous condition is caused by the interposition of the Government acting under the earlier part of the regulation, then the occupier is not to pay damages if someone is injured owing to that dangerous condition. But I want to be quite sure that the corollary is true—that the Government who created the danger, will pay compensation. These things are done in a roundabout way under our system, which I am bound to say has not been as successful as it might have been, although it has worked fairly well. First you get, from the Government the name of the officer you can sue who is responsible for doing the work; then you fight it out as between the person injured and the nominated officer, and then, if the nominated officer is found to have been negligent, you get damages against him, and the Government pay. I think that arrangement is clearly intended to be carried out in Regulation 50 (3), in its new guise.
I think that exhausts what I wish to say about number 50, and I come to the more important regulation number 51. I presume I am right in thinking that the same amendment will have to be made, as was made in number 50. I will see if I have got it right:
 A competent authority, if it considers it to be necessary or expedient in the interests of public safety "—

Mr. Ede: No.

Mr. Reid: It is very difficult to put the words together, and make them read grammatically, without having them in front of you, but the gist is quite clear. A competent authority, if it is acting for any of the very wide purposes of the Supplies and Services Act, may take possession of any land, and give such directions as appear to the competent authority to be necessary and expedient

in connection with the taking possession of the land. The land, of course, in the legal sense, includes everything that is attached to the land—all manner of buildings—and therefore this entitles the competent authority, which is practically every Department which could have an interest, to take possession summarily, without notice, without right of appeal, of any house in this country, inhabited or uninhabited, occupied or unoccupied, any factory, any building of any sort or kind.
I am aware that by administrative, action the asperity of that regulation has been fined down in wartime. There are rules of administration which have become well recognised and which prevent full advantage being taken of the powers of this regulation. But what I want to know is why, now that this has become a peacetime requirement, we did not have a limitation put into the paragraph itself. Why has this still to depend on the whim of the Government? It is an impossible situation that we should not know what the effective law is. We know what the actual law is, but one cannot know what the effective limitations are unless one is in touch with certain Departments concerned; there is no book to which one can refer. It really is quite intolerable that we should be told in peacetime that we must submit to this kind of thing.
As to the fact that no notice is given, I turn for confirmation to the Scottish section, and I find that a certified copy of an order to give up possession shall be sufficient warning for ejection. No right of notice at all is allowed, quite apart from there being no right of appeal before ejection takes place. The Minister of Health has allowed a right of appeal in the case of billeting, but not a minute's delay is allowed in turning a man into the street. Is this the way to draft legislation? I realise that this regulation is wanted to a certain extent in relation to housing, but I want to know for what else it is wanted. There may be a case for it; I hope the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what it is.
It may seem that requisitioning is a less drastic thing than compulsory purchase, but in the majority of cases requisitioning creates more hardship than compulsory purchase. With compulsory purchase, a man knows where he is. He can get his money, and use it in his business, or in other ways. But you are


under two disadvantages if your property is requisitioned. First, your resources are tied up, and, secondly, you have no knowledge when you are going to get back your property. We all know of the unjustifiable delay that occurs in returning requisitioned property.

The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson): The Minister of Works (Mr. Tomlinson)rose—

Mr. Reid: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to proceed. It is, I venture to think, an argument not always recognised in official circles, because it is often thought '' I am only going to requisition this." But it is very much worse. Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman what has been giving trouble to a number of people in my constituency. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give some explanation of this. As we have the change over from war to peace, quite a number of people have to move from one place to another, including people who have owned their houses in their old place of residence. Now, what happens? If you try to move, the local authority immediately comes along and requisitions your property and does not allow you to sell it. I cannot imagine anything worse than that from the point of view of local administration. I agree that you must not leave property empty, and you must occupy it fully; but, if you want to put it under the jurisdiction of the local authority, why not allow the local authority to buy it? Why not say that the person who wants to sell the property shall have the option to require the local authority to purchase the house rather than have it requisitioned? It seems to me that that Is the right thing to do. [Hon. Members: "At what price? "] At the price laid down in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944. [An Hon. Member: "Prices are up three times."] The hon. Gentleman apparently did not follow what I was saying. I said I was quite willing, if such an option were given, to couple with it the restriction of price to the ceiling fixed in the 1944 Act and that washes out all questions about the rise in prices I will not delay to instruct the hon. Member further.
We ought to have some assurance about what I venture to call this misuse of

the requisitioning power. I say again, so that there shall be no mistake about it, that I do not think it would be right to permit a sale to a person who is not going to occupy the premises fully; who is going to have only one or two people in large accommodation, which would hold several families, or one large family. Therefore if you do not like the person to whom the departing owner would like to sell the property, if the local authority think that sale would not be in the public interest, I do not say they should be bound to allow it; but if they prevent it, the local authority should be bound to take over the house, at an appropriate price under the Act, and should not compel the departing owner to go away and leave perhaps his sole capital locked up in a house which he will never see again. He is probably unable to find a house in the place to which he goes and he does not know how long his premises are going to be requisitioned, and he is left in a wholly unjustifiable position. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to give us some assurance about this use of requisitioning powers.
The next point is a shorter one. [Interruption.] I am sorry to detain the House but all this arises from the way these Orders are presented to the House of Commons. If the Government will insist on putting a large number of important regulations all in one Order they really cannot ask that we should refrain from putting forward quite genuine points on these occasions. I ask any hon. Gentleman, who has been here since I started, whether anything I have said has been irrelevant, or whether I have repeated myself. Indeed I have been so short that a number of hon. Gentleman below the Gangway have apparently failed to understand what I am talking about.

Mr. Medland: On a point of Order. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had as much experience of local government as I have, he would know what the requisitioning of houses means.

Mr. Reid: It so happens that what caused the earlier intervention was not what I said about requisitioning, but what I said about purchasing. I do not think that the hon. Member really understands that. But I will not go back to that as it is getting late. 
There is, as I say, a shorter point under No. 51 (2). That enactment allows the requisitioning authority to use the land in any way it chooses, notwithstanding any restriction imposed on the use thereof by any Act, instrument or otherwise. I want to know whether the requisitioning authorities really intend to use this to override local building regulations. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply knows what I mean when I mention the Dean of Guild Court. We have in Scotland an ancient and honourable court charged with the supervision of all buildings and alterations to existing buildings. Does this regulation mean that recommendations of the Dean of Guild court will be bypassed by the requisitioning authority if the latter sees fit? If it means that, it is highly objectable. There was a case in wartime for quick decisions, when labour was scarce. Does this mean 'that the requisitioning authority is still to be outside the appropriate building bylaws and be a law to itself? We should be told.
I come to the last point with which I wish to deal. I leave other points— and they are quite numerous— to other speakers. This point, which is a very important one, arises from the introduction at the last moment into the Supplies and Services Act of Section 5 (5) in its new form. -As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the effect of that is that, if land is requisitioned and thereafter something is done which alters its value up or down to an extent denned in the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act, the land is not handed back again to its original owner. It is bought, either to save an asset for the country ox to prevent the country from being charged an unduly large sum to restore the damage. I think that is a fair statement, in as short a space as I can put it, of the essential point of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. I do not want to go into the whole story; the right hon. Gentleman is well aware of the difficulty. Unless the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that he will not make use of the powers of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act in respect of land hereafter requisitioned, he will be operating compulsory purchase by an objectionable back door method as he will avoid all the safeguards—and there are not many left— which go with compulsory purchase. It will mean that be can step in and re-

quisition without notice or anything else. Then, having got possession, he can turn the place upside down in such a way that he can afford to buy the place under the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. That would be something approaching underhand procedure if it were used in peace time.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can give us adequate assurances that nothing of that kind will be done. If a Department wants to make extensive alterations on land I say quite clearly that land ought not to be requisitioned in order to be bought. There can be very few cases in which a Department is bound to change its mind after it has entered into possession, but even if a case occurs where a Department finds that it is going to carry out operations of this sort on the land, it ought to step in and purchase the land compulsorily, and not leave the owner in the very difficult position in which he is placed if it is left to the operation of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act. I am sure the Minister of Supply knows the point, because I understand he deals very much with this line of country, and I am sure he is sympathetic. I think we ought to be able to get a definite assurance that this purchase through the back door will not occur. There is really no excuse for it, because there is a Bill upstairs— the Acquisition of Land (Authorisation of Procedure) Bill—under which the time taken and the steps to be gone through before land is acquired are being cut to the very narrowest margins— perhaps too narrow, as some of us think. But even under the worst provisions of that Bill, one is a great deal better off than under this regulation number 51. I therefore hope that the regulation will not be used in this connection.
I think I have said enough to show that there are very important and difficult questions involved in these two— and I have only dealt with two— of the eight regulations involved here. In conclusion I would like again to express my view that it is extremely unfortunate that we have to deal with these most involved questions, every one of which requires examination, at this time of night. But we have to do it, and I am sure that neither we on our side of the House nor the Government on theirs will shirk the obligation to give these matters full and


complete examination. If I have occupied a rather long time, I am very sorry; it would have been much better if we could have broken the matter up and dealt with each of these regulations as it arose. It would have saved time in the long run. I have done my best and I hope the House will not think I have trespassed too long on its time.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. Maude: I beg to second the Motion.
Whereas my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) gracefully wielded a claymore, I propose to administer one or two sharp stabs with a bayonet to the right hon. Gentleman who represents the Home Office. The first point I want to make abundantly clear is that some months ago— it seems a very long time now— he was good enough to assure the House that he would put— I am not now making the same point as I was making earlier this evening— one of these books, the Defence Regulations, into the Library and that he would take care that it was kept up to date. I know that the motto this evening is "Prayers, idle prayers, I know not what they mean." There is no one who can possibly know what they mean if he relies on the Library. If they go to the.Library, hon. Members will find a book exactly similar to this, the one I hold in my hand. On the top is written "Amended as at 20th December, 1945." That is a long time ago, a very long time, but, nevertheless, one looks eagerly inside its pages. There are numerous amendments. Eventually we turn to the regulation with which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead was dealing and for which he was laughed at by some hon. Members. When he was laughed at I darted down the passage to have a peep into the book to see whether he was right or wrong. I went down to see whether it was right to laugh at him for reading out regulation 50 as printed and not as amended. I do not suggest that the Minister should go as rapidly as I did, but I can assure him, if he goes, he will find that the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead was quite right. Indeed he will find something rather more extraordinary if he looks at regulation No. 51 with which my right and learned Friend has just been dealing, that is in

connection with the requisition of land, it will be found there that the official who was detailed to make these corrections has to some extent dealt with it. After the words, "the community" he has put a star, and in the marginal note he has put "continued by S.R.& O. 1616 of 20/12/45," but he has not erased the words for which my right hon. and learned Friend was laughed at about the Defence of the Realm and public safety.

Mr. Ede: That is due to the' fact that they do not disappear from the regulation until 24th February..

Mr. Maude: I am much obliged. I have more ammunition than that. I turn hopefully to No. 53. One should again find that same little star against that regulation after the words "the community," with the note "Continued by S.R.O. 1616 of 20/12/45." Do we find that? No; there is nothing, not a thing. It is absolutely in its virginal condition. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to have the book sent for and to look at page 133. He will find that I am absolutely right and that nothing whatsoever has been done to regulation No. 53. It is quite intolerable that this should happen. The only book upon which any hon. Member on either side of the House can rely, or even pretend to rely, is that yellow book in the Library and that book has never been put right. I venture to say that hardly one Member of this House could have looked at it, otherwise hon. Members would have drawn attention immediately to the fact that it has not been put right. Therefore, it is a case of "Prayers, idle prayers."
Nobody knows what is happening here until this thing is dragged in by its heels. May I point out what has really happened? On 20th December, 1945, His Majesty, in pursuance of the Supplies and Services (Transitional Powers) Act, found it.vas necessary or expedient— that is a very important word— that a Defence regulation should have effect for the purpose of so maintaining, controlling and regulating supplies and services as to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the wellbeing of the community. I will not go on any further because it becomes so difficult to follow. That was the position on 20th of December, 1945. His Majesty was advised by somebody— I very much suspect it was not by the right hon. Gentleman— by some Minister of the


Crown and this Order was made on the 20th December. Has nothing been done? Has regulation 53 been invoked? Was it so expedient, was it so necessary to ask for the greatest powers that have ever been known in this country since the time of the Tudors? That is the fact. Let us face up to it. Let us see exactly what it is that really has happened. Without anybody knowing anything, and certainly not many Members of Parliament, we have to come here with a Prayer to ask why, on 20th December, 1945, it was necessary or expedient— and which was it, necessary or expedient?— to maintain control and regulation of supplies and services
so as to secure a sufficiency of those essential to the life of the community? 
It was not that. It has never been done. Turn to paragraph (b):
 To facilitate the demobilisation and resettlement of persons and to secure the orderly distribution of surplus materials.
Was that necessary? Will the Minister tell me?
 To facilitate the restoration of industry and commerce in time of peace.
Was that necessary or expedient? What has been happening is this. It is this mania for taking every conceivable power that one can possibly imagine. I do not blame the Minister, because I do not believe that this particular regulation is his pigeon or baby; I think it is someone who has to do with the Board of Trade.

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated dissent.

Mr. Maude: Well, somebody. What do they want? We are asking for an explanation to this House for wanting to take the most enormous powers that one can imagine. This is one of the most interesting things that has happened in England for years. If we take these two regulations together— they are on page 3— we find amendments to Regulations 51 and 53. What do they do? It is quite simple when once one has unscrambled the thing and put it straight. What does it mean? It means, in fact, that the right hon. Gentleman said that all they wanted to do on 20th December was to take powers to requisition any property in any place— requisitioning of property other than land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not blame me if I read words that are not supposed to be there, but if he will look at Regulation 53, he will find this:

 Subject to, as hereinafter provided the competent authority, if it appears to be necessary or expedient for the prosecution of the war—
We find those words still left in. On pages 1 and 2, we find four different ones. One relates to the
 restoration and redistribution of essential supplies and services in any part of H.M. Dominions or in foreign countries.
What did they put that in for? In order that they might requisition anything in the United Kingdom?
…any vessel, or aircraft, or anything on board a vessel or aircraft and including also any detachable part of any vehicle.
That, of course, is one of those things not meant to be amusing, but it is there, and it does not make it easy for the ordinary person to understand.
There are two more pages of it, down to the bottom of page 103, in the last edition of this wholely out of date book, which has not been published since 9th May, 1945. I suspect the right hon. Gentleman will find that paragraph (3) is hopelessly out of date; the names of the Ministers have probably been altered, but it does not matter very much. One cannot find out what it all means until somebody takes the trouble to come down and attend to it. Indeed, I very much doubt whether the officials are able to inform the right hon. Gentleman tonight whether, in fact, in the last 24 hours, or even 48 hours, something else has not been added to this regulation, or whether some other regulation has come out, or some order under the regulation, and where we are to find it heaven alone knows. If in fact powers have been taken under the regulation since 20th December, 1945, and if steps have been taken under Statutory Rule and Order 1616 since 20th December, 1945, does the House know anything about it? Is there any hon. Member who knows one way or another? Of course there is not. It is the result of having this delegated legislation, where you find two regulations, 51 and 53, giving the widest possible powers to Ministers, brought in, by the heels with a negative Resolution, temporarily not very active but potentially useful. But what for? When? How? Why? Can the House not see and agree with me that it is folly to introduce two of the greatest or potentially greatest Measures in this way? They should have been brought in in a different way.
I will point out why I say that. If the chattel of any hon. Member here— and I suppose he or she may have some chattel that some Minister might hanker after at some time— or indeed the detachable part of any vehicle, the spare wheel, is coveted, and if the Minister explains that he is able to have it to
 secure the sufficiency of supplies and services essential to the well-being of the community.
then all sorts of ideas arise. Suppose there is a strike. Suppose it is a great strike, a strike not organised by the friends of the Government. Suppose it is a strike organised by the enemies of the Government, but a sympathetic strike. [An Hon. Member: "The Tories."] Not very likely. I do not feel that in the months to come that hon. Member would say that. He knows perfectly well that there is a potentiality of other troubles at some time. The case of Tearse in the High Courts, to which I referred the other day, showed that it is there, lowering behind the backs of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and they know it. It was thought necessary at the time of a Coalition Government, if you please, to take steps at the court of assize against what were called Trotskyists. Do not let us minimise it. Supposing in fact this thing did come about, is it not likely that hon. Members opposite might think it necessary to take many things, except money, gold, securities, or negotiable instruments. Would it be a good way to stop it? I wonder? There are possibilities about it, and it might be one way of doing it. In fact, something quite different might be done. But why does it become necessary? Why in fact has the Crown been thus advised? Why was it necessary or expedient to take these powers as far back as 20th December, 1945?
I have no doubt we shall have an explanation from the Government, and I have no doubt that it will be a skilful one, but whether it will stand the test of reading is a different matter. But some explanation will have to be given. It must be a very grave explanation. You cannot face every man or woman in the country and say "I have these powers to take away anything I like at any time without notice and without good explanation," unless you have gone completely

mad. Again and again it has been reiterated in this House during the last few days, not only from this side but from both sides, that a Government which takes powers which are not necessary is not being properly controlled by the House of Commons, on both sides. It is not a question of this side of the House only. How impossible it is for hon. Gentlemen sitting behind the Government to hope that they can control this sort of delegated legislation. They can see for themselves what is happening. Right hon. Gentlemen come along and make Orders and then along comes the Scrutiny Committee and says "What is all this about?" Then the whips crack and everybody is here, all like kittens in a basket, waiting to pass through the Lobbies. It will not do. Sooner or later hon. Members will realise that it is extremely unpleasant to be kept waiting all this time for an explanation of why these powers have been taken. There is not even an explanatory Memorandum, not a word. Well, I have spoken and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me that the first part of my complaint about this sacred volume is absolutely justified. On the second part of the argument I hope I have advanced sufficient reason why we should have an explanation from him of why these powers are needed. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] It, is all very well for hon. Members opposite to cheer. Perhaps they will have an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman that something wonderful is going to happen but it is taking a very long time. I hope we shall hear from the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: On a point of Order. When the previous Motion had been debated only for a very short time the Closure was moved from the Government benches. Would it be in Order to ask if the Closure is going to be moved again on this Motion directly after the Home Secretary has finished speaking?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I cannot anticipate the progress of the Debate by making any statement as to its procedure, neither can I permit the hon. Member to put a question to the Home Secretary for I should have to extend the same privilege to other hon. Members.

11.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The speech of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) is, of course, an attack on the Supply and Services Act that we debated last November and December. The House then reached certain decisions which were embodied in the Act, and these regulations flow from that decision and are the means of giving effect to that Act. The great number of generalities in which he indulged were in fact, I should have thought, more in keeping with a Debate on the Second Reading of the Supply and Services Act than on these particular regulations. It cannot be expected that every particular paragraph of these regulations which are before us to night have to be justified in the light of every one of the requirements set out in Subsection (1) of Section 1 of the Supply and Services Act. Some are required for one purpose and some for others; very few of them, indeed, if any, are required for all the purposes of the Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) started off with such pleasant allusions to myself that I was certain that trouble was brewing, and, as usual, the worse his case became, the harder he banged the Box. I know when the right hon. and learned Gentleman is getting on to the weak part of his case because the Box suffers in exact proportion to the weakness of his case.

Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Just like the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. Ede: No, I think he taught the Foreign Secretary. He asked me one or two general questions to which I hope I may be able to give him a reasonably satisfactory answer. He asked me, for instance, about the question under Regulations 50 and 51 with regard to giving notice before a Government Department enters into possession or goes on to the land. It is the practice now, and I understand that there is no reason to expect that it will be departed from, except in the most exceptional circumstances, that notice is given and that as a result, not less than seven days' notice will be given, and during that time, of course, representations can be made to the appropriate Department with regard to the form of the requisition, and I hope that

it may be possible, with a minimum of seven days, to give at least a fortnight in most cases.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It is a very short period. Can we have an assurance that the Department will have considered and decided the matter before the requisitioning takes effect, because it will be a very short period to bring the matter up and have it properly investigated?

Mr. Ede: That is precisely the difficulty. When I make a concession, at once it is not enough. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Health, after being belaboured for giving less than myself, was held up to the eulogy of the House because he had agreed to give seven days. I come to a fortnight, and at once the suggestion is that that is not enough. Of course, we recognise that times are changing and that we shall hope that these requisitioning powers, which are now hardly ever used at all, and will not be used very much in the future, can be so used as to enable adequate notice to be given. I expect there is only one case in which I must make an exception to that rule; that is, where the Minister of Works has to requisition buildings for homeless persons. In some cases it is not possible to deal with them with the kind of notice we hope will be given in all the other circumstances in which we expect to use these orders.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me with regard to certain of the paragraphs of Regulation 50, and to give him certain assurances. With regard to the request he made under Defence Regulation 50, paragraph (3), I can give him the assurance for which he asked. With regard to paragraph (2), the question is more difficult. It depends on the wording of the Compensation (Defence) Act, and I should hesitate to go as far as he asked without being able to study the implications of that Act on the request that he made. But it is difficult to imagine any circumstances in which we shall want to use Regulation 50, paragraph (2) except, possibly, in the few cases of the Ministry of Supply; which, from what he said, was what he most expected. That regulation enables authorities to do any work on any land. It enables work to be done on the land without requisitioning the land, and it is under this regulation that the Ministry of Fuel and Power have done.


opencast coal work. It is clearly essential for some time to come that we should have the necessary powers to deal with opencast coal, and this regulation is also of great importance to the County Agricultural Executive Committees, as it enables them to get work done on land without going to the necessity of requisitioning land.
I gather from what he said on the latter regulation that he was anxious that requisitioning powers should be used as little as possible; and I think that the continuation of this particular regulation does ensure that that shall be done. It is also necessary to continue this regulation so that agricultural committees may carry out land drainage work beyond the powers of the drainage authorities. The Minister of Works requires this regulation to deal with the removal of defence works. I hope the House will, therefore, feel that there is ample justification for the continuance of this regulation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked why it was wanted, and I hope that the instances I have given show that we still need it. I have endeavoured to deal with the question of notice and I hope the right hon. Member is satisfied with the answer I have been able to give him. With regard to paragraph (3), which deals with who shall pay for the damage caused, the kind of arrangement that he instanced in the course of his speech will be continued, and we hope that in that way injustice will be avoided.
The next regulation with which he dealt was Regulation 51. This is a regulation which authorises competent authorities to requisition land, including buildings. During the demobilisation period, the Service Departments, on occasion, may be able to relinquish some land, including buildings, if they can get smaller or more suitable land or buildings for their purposes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will recollect that we had this up several times on the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Bill, where, in the end, we came to the agreement that on occasion it may very well be desirable, in the interests of the community as a whole, that some of the requisitioned land shall be derequisitioned if other land, less required by the community as a whole, can be taken by the

Government Department concerned. And the same thing, of course, applies to the Disposal Services where again, by the contraction of stores, it is sometimes possible to release a large or compact area of land, if some smaller and less usable piece of land can be taken. As far as possible, we shall endeavour to see that that policy is carried out. The local authorities also need these requisitioning powers in order to provide land for housing in certain circumstances. And again it is essential that the agricultural committees shall be in a position to take possession of a farm and put in a new tenant in cases where they hold that the existing occupier is not farming his land efficiently.
The Minister of Supply may need to requisition land, or even a factory, for the purposes of manufacturing, for instance, housing components. May I say, with regard to some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter, that the Minister of Supply assures me that the existence of these powers has been of very considerable help to him in getting on with the provision of housing components? And, as often happens it is not so much the use of the powers, as the possession of them that enables progress to be made in matters of that kind. People who are willing to remain inactive all the time the Government are armed with no powers, will become active at the moment when the Government are armed with powers, although those powers do not, in fact, have to be used. I do not think I can agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the distinction he drew between requisition and compulsory purchase. I will remember it in future when compulsory purchase orders, which I promote in another capacity are complained about, and would point out how much more generous I am than the right hon. and learned Gentleman used to be, a few years ago. But I am afraid the argument will not get me very far Neither can I agree that people should be given the option of compelling the local authority to purchase. There is nothing to prevent the local authority from purchasing, if a satisfactory arrangement can be reached; but I do not think it would be right to give the owner of the property the right to compel the local authority to purchase, even with the limitation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested should be put on the price that is to be paid.


The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question with regard to Section 5 (5) of the Supplies and Services Act. That is another case in which I have let myself in for trouble by being conciliatory to the Opposition. That Subsection was put into the Act on the Report stage as a result of an effort to try to meet what I regarded as the legitimate grievances of the Opposition in the matter. I can give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance that it is not intended to use that Subsection in order to bring about what he described as compulsory purchase by back-door methods. I do not think it at all likely that there will be a single case, but there might be one or two extraordinary cases in which it would only be just to all concerned that the powers of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Act should be brought into play after land had been taken under that Subsection But our intention is certainly not to use it except in those most exceptional circumstances.
I owe some apology to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and to the House with regard to the volume to which the hon. and learned Member for Exeter alluded so dramatically. I gave an assurance to the House. I am informed that there was a slip-up on the one case that was discovered by the hon. and learned Member for Exeter. With regard to the words read out by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead, the case is that they do not disappear from the regulation until 24th February. It would, therefore, have been wrong to have struck them out of the volume in the Library until that date was reached. I do not think we shall be troubled with this kind of thing in the future, for, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, I am compiling a volume of the regulations, which, I hope, will be placed in the Library, and will be available, for sale, as soon as 24th February is past. We shall then be able to have in front of us the whole of the Defence Regulations under the Emergency Laws (Transitional Powers) Act and the Supplies and Services Act, available in the form in which they will be operative; and from time to time amending volumes will be published, so that I hope we shall not again get into the tangle which has been operating, not merely during the last four or five months, but during the period since 1939, when the Defence Regulations first came into

operation. We are anxious that none of these regulations shall be used oppressively. I have given, I hope, satisfactory assurances on the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and I can assure him that, as from time to time it becomes less necessary to rely on these regulations, we shall revoke them in order that they shall not be lying about, capable of abuse, when there is no further need for their use.

11.40 p.m.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House, even at this late hour of the night, on a matter of this importance which, by reason of the course the Government have taken, cannot be discussed in any other way. Therefore, I desire to put one or two points of considerable importance to the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State said that this Motion was an attack upon the Act of 1945.

Mr. Ede: I said nothing of the sort. I said that the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Exeter (Mr. Maude) was an attack on the Act.

Major Boyd-Carpenter: With very great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it was nothing of the sort. It was an attack upon the use which the Government have seen fit to make of the Act. It will be within the recollection of the right hon. Gentleman, and of the House, that the hon. and learned Member for Exeter went out of his way to refer to the relevant words of the Act:
 That it was necessary or expedient to make an Order.
That will be within the recollection of the House, and it will, in due course, appear in the Official Report. I would emphasise that the attack is upon the use the Government have made of the very wide powers that they have taken under the Act. Once again we were treated to the defence of this taking of wide powers by the plea that it was not intended to exercise them. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman, in taking that line, fully appreciated the unprecedented—in time of peace— powers which he is taking, powers to requisition not only every house but every chattel in the country. I submit that we have heard remarkably little defence or justi-


fication for the taking of these powers. They are taken in this extraordinary way, indirectly, under the Act of 1945, by a method that is extremely difficult to discuss. It is a little curious that, when powers infinitely less important than these are taken, they are taken with due debate, with full and detailed justification— or attempted justification, anyhow— put forward by the Minister in charge. Whereas, now we are faced with a fait accompli— with an Order made nearly two months ago, which we are able to debate only tonight. We are entitled, as representing our constituencies and the country, to ask what is the reason, what the necessity, for taking powers to requisition every chattel in the country in time of peace.
I would invite attention very particularly to Regulation 53, on which remarkably little was said by the right hon. Gentleman. No doubt in the exercise of that tactical and Parliamentary skill of which he is a master, he did not attempt to justify taking these powers. I would repeat the question that has already been put from these benches: what is the necessity, what is the overwhelming need, which causes the Government to take powers to requisition every chattel in the country? What is the emergency which they apprehend? What crisis have they foreseen which calls for these enormous powers in time of peace? I do not believe that it is fully realised, least of all by hon. Members opposite, that they are participating, as accessories after the fact, in the taking by the Executive of powers which this House has denied to successive Sovereigns over the centuries. We are entitled—and this applies with even greater emphasis to hon. Members opposite—to know what is the justification, what the need, for taking these powers in time of peace. We have been given none. We have been told none at all. We have heard from the right hon. Gentleman, with respect to the requisition of land, that there is convenience therein for certain of his colleagues and for certain Departments. That may be so, but we have not heard a word as to why it is necessary to take these powers to requisition chattels. Though it be comparatively late in the evening and though we are hamstrung by these methods that the Government, for their own reasons, have seen fit to adopt for taking these

powers, we are entitled to have an answer on this.
I would say one thing more to hon. Members opposite who by their attitude to this question— 1 say this deliberately— of frivolous irresponsibility— [Interruption]— I am glad they endorse it. By their attitude to a question which, be it right or wrong, is of transcendent importance, they have succeeded in one thing, and that is, in demonstrating to the House and to the country the incapacity of the Labour Party to govern.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary put the best face he could on these regulations and gave us some comfort and a number of pious hopes. But it seems to me, so far as the greater part of his remarks were concerned, we really were not advanced very much by what he said. He told us the Government would do their best not to be oppressive. I think that was a fair paraphrase of his remarks. He did not, however, tell us how far they were going to delegate their authority. I am perfectly willing to agree that if the Government keep the matter in the hands of the higher civil servants and if difficult cases are referred for the decision of the Minister himself then, even if some of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite prove to be somewhat ephemeral I am sure their successors will still act reasonably. It is when we have delegation— as, almost inevitably, we must in this matter— to a much lower range of officers that the trouble occurs.
I am not sure whether 1 understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly He told us something about seven days and something about 14. First he said there was to be seven days' notice and then he said we were grumbling at 14. I am not sure what he meant. Did he mean there was always to be seven days and sometimes 14, or did he mean there was always to be 14? I am not clear yet. I do not know whether he can tell me. Seven days is quite hopeless. There is not time in seven days to make an appeal which is going to reach the Government Department and be decided. The right hon. Gentleman referred to billeting, which is absolutely and entirely different because in the case of billeting there is a local appeal tribunal in the same town and all that has to be done is to summon them together and


put the case to them. It is all over in half an hour. That is not the way in Government Departments and 14 days is little enough in all conscience, but if the Minister says he is going to cut it down to seven I can tell him it will just not work. I agree that under the Compensation (Defence) Act there is no compensation if a man is restricted from doing work on his own. land. Compensation is paid only if the land is taken possession of, or work is done on it. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it has been the custom throughout the war to pay compensation in circumstances which are not warranted by, or to a greater extent than is warranted by the Compensation (Defence) Act. I asked him whether extra compensation would apply in that case. I did not get an answer and so shall have to consult the Treasury, but the Treasury is not represented here. I agree that there are few cases for using No. 50, but can he say that he is not going to use it in any other case?
With regard to No. 51, the right hon. Gentleman started off very nicely by saying the Government were only going to use it where they could, by derequisitioning, release some bigger place. It is not much consolation for a man whose property was taken to know that a bigger property was given back to somebody else, particularly if the derequisitioned house is handed back in a dilapidated condition. I should have thought that that was not a very good policy. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoilt it all by" saying "Of course, the Minister of Supply must be allowed some rope in this matter." I think we should have heard the right hon. Gentleman, as he is the chief culprit in this matter, and learned how he is to use it. I am, indeed, a little surprised that, as the Minister of Supply is here and is the

main person interested, he did not reply instead of the Home Secretary, who is really not responsible for any of the things to which these regulations apply. I think it is rather unfortunate that we did not get a better answer on No. 51, and that we did not get an answer at all on No. 53. I do not think one case was suggested of the reasonable use of No. 53.

I have said enough to show that, although the right hon. Gentleman approached this matter very reasonably and would, if the matter were all in his control, no doubt meet us, he cannot compromise the Minister of Supply or the Treasury or the Ministry of Health about requisitioning. Since the Government put up the right hon. Gentleman to answer for Departments for which he is not responsible, it is not surprising that we did not get a very satisfactory answer. As we have the Minister of Supply here, and representatives of the Ministry of Health, why are we not told? I am not satisfied that these other Departments have given adequate assurances. The right hon. Gentleman has given assurances within-his power, but the other Departments have failed to do so, and therefore we think that, as the Government have not chosen to do what they ought to have done and amend this regulation and have not given us proper assurances, we have no other course open to us but to register in the Division Lobby our protest, and our view that we dislike these despotic powers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley): rose in his place, and claimed to move, " That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 169; Noes, 41.

Forman, J. C.
Mack, J. D.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Foster, W. (Wigan)
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
McKinlay, A. S.
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
McLeavy, F.
Solley, L. J.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
MacMillan, M. K.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Ganley, Mrs. C. S.
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Steele, T.


Gilzean, A.
Mathers, G.
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Mayhew, C. P.
Taylor, H. B (Mansfield)


Gordon-Walker, P. C.
Medland, H. M.
Thomas, l. O. (Wrekin)


Grenfell, D. R.
Messer, F.
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Thorneycroft, H.


Hardy, E. A.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Tiffany, S.


Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Timmons, J.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Herbison, Miss M.
Oldfield, W. H.
Turner-Samuels, M.


Holman, P.
Oliver, G. H.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


House, G.
Orbach, M.
Warbey, W. N.


Hoy, J.
Paget, R. T.
Watkins, T. E.


Hubbard, T.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Watson, W. M.


Hudson, J. H. (Eating, W.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Hughes, Lt. H. D. (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, D.


Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Janner, B.
Pearson, A.
White, H.(Derbyshire, N.E.)


Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Perrins, W.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Popplewell, E.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Porter, E. (Warrington)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Jones, Asterley (Hitchin)
Ranger, J.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Keenan, W.
Rankin, J.
Willis, E.


Kenyon, C.
Rhodes, H.
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J


Key, C. W.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wise, Major F. J.


Lavers, S.
Royle, C.
Woodburn, A.


Lee, F. (Hulme)
Scott-Elliot, W.
Woods, G. S.


Leonard, W.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.
Wyatt, Maj. W.


Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)
Yates, V. F.


Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)
Zilliacus, K.


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Silverman, J. (Erdington)



Logan, D. G.
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Longden, F.
Simmons. C J.
Mr. Robert Taylor and


McEntee, V. La T.
Skeffington, A. M.
Captain Michael Stewart


McGhee, H. G.
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)





NOES.


Barlow, Sir J.
Linstead, H. N.
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Gage, Lt.-Col. C.
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maude, J. C.
Turton, R. H.


Grimston, R. V.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Hogg, Hon. Q.
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.



Hope, Lord J.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Commander Agnew and Mr.Drewe:


Keeling E. H.
Scott, Lord W.

Question put accordingly.

" That the Order in Council, dated 20th December, 1945, with respect to the Defence Regulations relating to Requisitioning and similar Powers (S.R.& O., 1945, No. 1616), a

Division No. 85.]
AYES.
12.1a.m. 


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)
Scott, Lord W.


Barlow, Sir J.
Keeling, E. H.
Smith, E. P. (Ashferd)


Boyd-Carpenter, Maj. J. A.
Linstead, H. N.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Buchan-Hepburn, P. G T.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.
Spence, Maj. H. R.


Clarke, Col. R. S.
Mackeson, Lt.-Col. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thomas, J. P L. (Hereford)


Crowder, Capt. J. F. E.
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Thorneycroft, G. E. P.


Drewe, C.
Marples, Capt. A. E.
Turton, R. H.


Gage, Lt.-Col. C
Marshall, Comdr. D. (Bodmin)
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A. G.
Maude, J. C.
White, J. B. (Canterbury)


Grimston, R. V.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Neven-Spence, Major Sir B.



Hogg, Hon. Q.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hollis, Sqn.-Ldr. M. C.
Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C. (Hillhead)
Sir John Mellor and


Hope. Lord J.
Roberts,Maj.P.G.(Ecclesall)
Mr. Charles Taylor.

copy of which was presented on 22nd January, be annulled.

The House divided: Ayes, 41; Noes, 169.

NOES. 


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Proctor, W. T.


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Hardy, E. A.
Ranger, J.


Austin, H. L.
Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Rankin, J.


Bacon, Miss A.
Henderson, J (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.


Baird, Capt. J.
Herbjson, Miss M.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)


Bechervaise, A. E.
Holman, P.
Royle, C.


Belcher, J. W.
House, G.
Scott-Elliot, W.


Bing, Capt. G. H. C.
Hoy, J.
Sharp, Lt.-Col. G. M.


Binns, J.
Hubbard, T.
Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)


Blenkinsop, Capt. A.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Shawcross, Sir H. (St. Helens)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Lt. H. D. (Wolverh'ton, W.)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)


Boardman, H.
Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)
Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)


Bottomley, A. G.
Janner, B.
Simmons, C. J.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'p'l, Exch'ge)
Jeger, Capt. G. (Winchester)
Skeffington, A. M.


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St, Pancras, S.E.)
Smith, Capt. C. (Colchester)


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Asterley (Hitchin)
Snow, Capt. J. W.


Champion, A. J.
Keenan, W
Solley, L. J. 


Chetwynd, Capt. G. R.
Kenyon, C.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.


Clitherow, Dr. R.
Lavers, S.
Steele, T.


Cobb, F. A.
Lee, F. (Hulme)
Symonds, Maj. A. L.


Coldrick, W.
Leonard, W.
Taylor, H. B. (Mansfield)


Collick, P.
Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)
Thomas, l. O. (Wrekin)


Collindridge, F.
Lewis, J. (Bolton)
Thomas, John R. (Dover)


Colman, Miss G. M
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Comyns, Dr. L.
Logan, D. G.
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Ed'b'gh, E.)


Daggar, G.
Longden, F.
Thorneycroft, H-


Davies, Edward (Burslem)
McEntee, V. La T.
Tiffany, S.


Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
McGhee, H. G.
Timmons, J.


Davies, S. O (Merthyr)
Mack, J. D
Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.


Deer, G.
McKay, J. (Wallsend)
Turner-Samuels, M.


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKinlay, A. S.
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Delargy, Captain H. J.
McLeavy, F.
Warbey, W. N.


Diamond, J.
MacMillan, M. K.
Watkins, T. E.


Dobbie, W.
Mallalieu, J. P. W
Watson, W. M.


Douglas, F. C. R.
Mathers, G.
Webb, M. (Bradford, C.)


Driberg, T. E. N.
Mayhew, C. P.
Weitzman, D.


Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Medland, H. M.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Dumpleton, C. W.
Messer, F.
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, Maj. G. R.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Neal, H. (Claycross)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Fairhurst, F.
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Farthing, W. J.
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E (Brentford)
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Foot, M. M.
Noel-Buxton, Lady
Willis, E.


Forman, J. C.
Oldfield, W. H
Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.


Foster, W. (Wigan)
Oliver, G. H.
Wise, Major F. J.


Fraser, T (Hamilton)
Orbach, M
Woodburn, A.


Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Paget, R. T.
Woods, G. S.


Gaitskell, H. T. N.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Wyatt, Maj. W


Ganley, Mrs. C. S
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Yates, V. F.


Gilzean, A.
Pargiter, G. A
Zilliacus, K.


Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Parkin, Fit.-Lieut. B. T.



Gordon-Walker, P. C
Pearson, A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grenfell, D. R.
Perrins, W.
Mr. Robert Taylor and


Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
Popplewell, E.
Captain Michael Stewart.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)
Porter, E. (Warrington)

ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: '' That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Mathers.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes past Twelve o'Clock.